Another POSSIBILITY is that after Sweden offered it, France and Prussia accepted it and the treaty was "official". However, the state of continuing war between Sweden and Prussia immediately broke the treaty (I believe wars always break all treaties between warring nations????).
I will ask France and Prussia if they remember ratifying the treaty during the January turn. If they did, I didn't get any notice that it was (I don't believe). Let me check.
When I proposed this, I assumed that the "peace" clauses would force us to peace if everyone ratified it (if a state of war existed between any of us). IF it was fully ratified by all parties, apparently, the treaty doesn't force a peace? And the existing state of war between Prussia and Sweden kicked the whole treaty out?
The only way I can make sense of it is:
1. I proposed the treaty in a state of war with Prussia
2. France and Prussia ratified it (while a state of war existed between Prussia and Sweden)
3. The state of war between Sweden and Prussia cancelled the treaty immediately
4. The royal marriages which had been carried out were also cancelled.
If this is the case, it might be handy to allow the signing of a treaty with a peace term in it to force a peace? Or? Should it be absolutely required for a nation to be at peace before proposing a treaty to its enemies? I think a system in which enemies could propose treaties to their enemies during a state of war would be useful, and realistic.
However, even if the treaty didn't force a state of peace, France and Sweden should not have had their brand new "royal marriages" which lasted for 10 seconds cancelled since France and Sweden stayed at peace (I don't know if this caused a Glory penalty or not...it would be handy to have a Glory penalty tracker for trouble shooting).
-B2
P.S. What is important now, is for me to find out if France and Prussia both ratified.
