The purpose of this paper is to chart the relationship between supplicants and the Knightship and the nobility (K.a.N) during the age of freedom and the identities created in these meetings. The result of this study is based on the parliamentary protocols of 1731, 1746-1757 and 1771-1772. To answer the purpose of this study, three questions have been constructed. First, who were the supplicants and the supplications? Supplicants came from all over Sweden and its provinces. It was mainly nobleman who spoke to K.a.N, but also women, farmers, bourgeois, craftsmen, theologians, academics, officials and cultural workers. The supplications, could be performed by a single supplicant or a larger group, both for personal reasons or for someone else's. The supplications could both, written down short and concise or long and nuanced. Service, economy, benefit, legal goals and permissions are the five different types of supplications that have been categorized. There is a change in the content of supplications over time, which was due to changes in external frameworks such as laws and taxes. Secondly, what strategies and identities were used by the supplicant to try to influence the outcome of the supplication? In total, sixteen different strategies and identities have been indetified. The legal right, Employment, Succession, For king and country, Suffering, Gods will, By the nature, Like so many before, Honors and status, Encouragement, Flattering, The family, Health and mind, Loss, Modesty, and Poverty. Thirdly, how did the K.a.N motivate their decisions? Of the total 182 supplications 147 were appeals. In 1731 a practice was developed where widows were granted half of the amount they sought. In total there were 12 supplications that did not get a decision or were left resting and nine supplications were rejected. The supplications that were rejected were mainly requests regarding succession and recommendations. It has shown that the supplication could create reproach for the K.a.N, partly by showing decisions later regarded as incorrect. Supplications about recommendations often raised discussions within the K.a.N and many advocated that they should not interfere with private matters. K.a.N did not treat the supplications with consistency - but with what was considered appropriate for the individual, even if it was against the law/practice. It was also found that the supplicant's identity was fortified by K.a.N or created, in order to justify approvals. The approval could be written even more nuanced and flattering by K.a.N than the supplication itself.

The purpose of this master thesis is to understand how political culture was negotiated during times of extreme external conditions, through the example of the parliamentary debates during the famine years 1726–1727. The result is based on the parliamentary protocols of 1726–1727 under the Age of Freedom. To answer the purpose of this study, four questions have been constructed. How was the crop failure and its consequences described? During the summer of 1726 Sweden was struck by a severe famine as a result of a poor harvest. The livestock were weakened and the farms had fallen into destitute. The peasants had to gather roots, bark, and moss to survive. Even the nobility described their own cultural habits and assets as being threatened and damaged. The local community felt that they could not live up to the demands made by the central power. What solutions did the local community propose or demand from the central power to tackle the consequences of the crop failure? The high taxation and lack of money, together with a strictly regulated trade, made the peasants feel forsaken, especially compared to other groups. The main strategies to gain the central powers approval was to show submission, refer to the law and try to compromise. But, when the central power did not respond to the peasants demands they threatened to leave their political duties. If the peasants had left, the entire political system could have collapsed. With what arguments did the central power respond to these problems? The central power feared that if they allowed the peasants to trade to a greater extent, they would perhaps engage in trade rather than in agriculture. They also feared an increased risk of fraud if the market opened up for a more mobile trade, which reflected the suspicion of a lack of morality among the peasants. The lack of trust was also an excuse to exclude the peasants from the Secret committee. The political distribution of power was considered by the peasants to be a political failure. Without the insight into the Secret committee, the peasants could not use economic arguments in the debate. How can the debate about crop failure and famine be understood as an example of political culture? Instead of the peasantry protesting with rebellion against the central powers levies, the Riksdag can be regarded as a safety valve, where the central power and the local society could find middle ground. If the demands of the local community did not collide with other groups' interests, then there was a good chance of getting temporary reliefs or increased freedom of trade.