I've seen scenarios producing an Anglo-Dutch union relying primarily on two scenarios: either Queen Elizabeth of England becoming the Dutch monarch, or a union due to a child produced from the marriage of William and Mary. Is there any other way to produce an Anglo-Dutch Empire without having to rely on either of these scenarios? The goal is to get an Anglo-Dutch union after the 1580s (when Elizabeth received her offers) but before 1689 (when William III took the throne).
Anglo-Dutch Union: Hard Mode
- Thread starter WhatIsAUserName
- Start date
As you may know William III and Mary were both successors to the british throne (3rd and 1st in line respectively), Williams right came from the fact his mother Mary was the sister of King James/Daughter of Charles I. So another option would be that William II doesn't die of smallpox, and on the other hand his wife princess royal Mary becomes first in line of british succession (james dies early & childless).
This would see Mary become queen in 1649 when Charles dies.
This would see Mary become queen in 1649 when Charles dies.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the 'Roundhead' government of England, before Cromwell became dictator, suggested union into a single [Calvinist-led] republic but that the Dutch rejected this proposal.
As Wietze says, William II not dying is a good PoD. The other way of doing it using him is even simpler, and doesn't need and Royal Princes killed off either;
PoD: 1650. William II of Orange cocks up his coup against Amsterdam and is reduced to camping miserably outside the walls of the city with his army. Things are patched over (and his death by smallpox is butterflied), while the Regents of Holland, increasingly pissed off with the Stadtholder, continue their secret negotiations with the Commonwealth. Finally, come 1652 or so, fighting erupts between the Orangists and their foes, and Oliver Cromwell, taking the Hollander promises of joining the Commonwealth very seriously, decides to take the New Model Army on an excursion...
It probably wouldn't end well, but it would be fun while it lasted!
PoD: 1650. William II of Orange cocks up his coup against Amsterdam and is reduced to camping miserably outside the walls of the city with his army. Things are patched over (and his death by smallpox is butterflied), while the Regents of Holland, increasingly pissed off with the Stadtholder, continue their secret negotiations with the Commonwealth. Finally, come 1652 or so, fighting erupts between the Orangists and their foes, and Oliver Cromwell, taking the Hollander promises of joining the Commonwealth very seriously, decides to take the New Model Army on an excursion...
It probably wouldn't end well, but it would be fun while it lasted!
Anyway to combine the two? Oliver Cromwell sends the New Model Army to the Netherlands to create a Calvinist-led Republic. When that fails, William II and his wife Mary become the rulers of both England and the Netherlands? How would such a state look?
It would have the biggest navy in Europe and I think that unless there was a devieded sphere for Colonzation and trade we would have some very mixed areas. English or Dutch would both be the offical languages.
Ah a tie in to the more germanic languages thread, There might also be several new languages Dutch English hybrids.
Ah a tie in to the more germanic languages thread, There might also be several new languages Dutch English hybrids.
Apologies for bumping the thread!
But I'm actually quite keen for this for a timeline...
Cruising around Wikipedia and elsewhere, I've been researching the plausiblity of a Calvinist Commonwealth under Cromwell uniting England, Scotland, Ireland and [the Republic of] the Netherlands into one single political entity. It seems that for a plausible union to take place, there needs to be a readjustment in the political tensions between the Commonwealth and Republic and a greater focus on their similarities and intended goals.
Firstly, and most obviously, there was militaristic partnership between England and the Netherlands against the territorial ambitions of the Hapsburgs which stretches all the way back to the Dutch revolt under Philip II of Spain. They'd fought together to beat the Spanish Armada and England had funded the Dutch in the Eighty Years' War with both finance and troops. However, with the seperate peace for the English in 1604, this was the first major schism between the two states (apart from their established economic rivalry enhanced by Holland's quick dominance over Iberian trade). Furthermore, there was also the rivalry established by the weakening of Portugal and Spain regarding territories overseas and colonies. Nevertheless, despite the huge Dutch mercantile fleet they were outmatched by the Commonwealth's superior navy. A combination of the two could have benefitted them greatly.
Most significantly, however, there was the inescapable truth that both the Commonwealth and the Dutch Republic were, as their names suggest, both republics and - very importantly - Protestant. As a result, when William II (of Orange) attempted to install military dictatorship, the Dutch naturally sought their closest ideological allies for help.
This is the cusp point - it is now when the Dutch vaguely approach the English for union. If this move is clearer, perhaps with a stronger looking Orangist force, then Cromwell might be quicker to intervene with more definitive results. As you've all mentioned above, if William II stays alive, rather than dying of smallpox in 1650, and continues to threaten the Republic, I think a union is far more likely - perhaps even probable. It was the death of William II that removed the urgency, and consequently I would his longevity as the first of several potential 'points of divergence.' Additionally, even if William does die in 1850, if the English delegation in the Hague is treated with greater skill and dexterity by the Dutch then it is possible that their differences could be put aside in the sake of union.
There are other things, too, that may have averted the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654) which naturally would have created a less-hositile relationship between GB and Holland. The Hague was a hotbed of royalist support - Charles I's daughter Mary Henrietta Stuart, the Princess Royal, was a resident of the city, and pro-royalist English exiles had gathered there. Additionally, the Dutch proposal of a free trade agreement (to counter English plans for world-dividing spheres of influence) was met with anger in the Commonwealth who saw it as a deliberate affront to their ambitions - when in fact it was merely a Dutchcentric compromise to avert war which resulted in the opposite. If you avert this reaction, war may be avoided.
In conclusion, then, it seems that the Anglo-Dutch Union of 1650 could - quite easily in my opinion - be formed in the midst of anti-monarchist ambition, religious similarity and a considerable military and economic base. I think I'd help if William II survived, or (if he did die) was replaced by just as strong a force to spook the Netherlands enough to seriously seek help, rather than the tentative inklings that they put forward in OTL. Such a union would, undoubtedly, form one of the most significant geopolitical players of the world at the time, and form a considerable threat to the monarchies of the continent - assuming Cromwell doesn't go rogue, of course. I can see it potentially linking up with the Protestant movements (as religious differences will be MUCH more significant internationally in this world) in the various Germanies and Scandinavia. I have visions of an Anglo-Dutch Commonwealth, Scandinavia and *German* alliance against the Catholic powers of Spain, France(?) and Austria, in particular.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OK - that's the seminar over.
Please, somebody, correct or embellish some points as you see fit. It'd be useful now that I'm seriously considering this as the foundation for a timeline.
But I'm actually quite keen for this for a timeline...
Cruising around Wikipedia and elsewhere, I've been researching the plausiblity of a Calvinist Commonwealth under Cromwell uniting England, Scotland, Ireland and [the Republic of] the Netherlands into one single political entity. It seems that for a plausible union to take place, there needs to be a readjustment in the political tensions between the Commonwealth and Republic and a greater focus on their similarities and intended goals.
Firstly, and most obviously, there was militaristic partnership between England and the Netherlands against the territorial ambitions of the Hapsburgs which stretches all the way back to the Dutch revolt under Philip II of Spain. They'd fought together to beat the Spanish Armada and England had funded the Dutch in the Eighty Years' War with both finance and troops. However, with the seperate peace for the English in 1604, this was the first major schism between the two states (apart from their established economic rivalry enhanced by Holland's quick dominance over Iberian trade). Furthermore, there was also the rivalry established by the weakening of Portugal and Spain regarding territories overseas and colonies. Nevertheless, despite the huge Dutch mercantile fleet they were outmatched by the Commonwealth's superior navy. A combination of the two could have benefitted them greatly.
Most significantly, however, there was the inescapable truth that both the Commonwealth and the Dutch Republic were, as their names suggest, both republics and - very importantly - Protestant. As a result, when William II (of Orange) attempted to install military dictatorship, the Dutch naturally sought their closest ideological allies for help.
This is the cusp point - it is now when the Dutch vaguely approach the English for union. If this move is clearer, perhaps with a stronger looking Orangist force, then Cromwell might be quicker to intervene with more definitive results. As you've all mentioned above, if William II stays alive, rather than dying of smallpox in 1650, and continues to threaten the Republic, I think a union is far more likely - perhaps even probable. It was the death of William II that removed the urgency, and consequently I would his longevity as the first of several potential 'points of divergence.' Additionally, even if William does die in 1850, if the English delegation in the Hague is treated with greater skill and dexterity by the Dutch then it is possible that their differences could be put aside in the sake of union.
There are other things, too, that may have averted the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654) which naturally would have created a less-hositile relationship between GB and Holland. The Hague was a hotbed of royalist support - Charles I's daughter Mary Henrietta Stuart, the Princess Royal, was a resident of the city, and pro-royalist English exiles had gathered there. Additionally, the Dutch proposal of a free trade agreement (to counter English plans for world-dividing spheres of influence) was met with anger in the Commonwealth who saw it as a deliberate affront to their ambitions - when in fact it was merely a Dutchcentric compromise to avert war which resulted in the opposite. If you avert this reaction, war may be avoided.
In conclusion, then, it seems that the Anglo-Dutch Union of 1650 could - quite easily in my opinion - be formed in the midst of anti-monarchist ambition, religious similarity and a considerable military and economic base. I think I'd help if William II survived, or (if he did die) was replaced by just as strong a force to spook the Netherlands enough to seriously seek help, rather than the tentative inklings that they put forward in OTL. Such a union would, undoubtedly, form one of the most significant geopolitical players of the world at the time, and form a considerable threat to the monarchies of the continent - assuming Cromwell doesn't go rogue, of course. I can see it potentially linking up with the Protestant movements (as religious differences will be MUCH more significant internationally in this world) in the various Germanies and Scandinavia. I have visions of an Anglo-Dutch Commonwealth, Scandinavia and *German* alliance against the Catholic powers of Spain, France(?) and Austria, in particular.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OK - that's the seminar over.
Please, somebody, correct or embellish some points as you see fit. It'd be useful now that I'm seriously considering this as the foundation for a timeline.
Actually, it had diverged quite a lot by that time; which is not surprising, since the divide began in the first century AD. However, the massive Anglo-Norman influence is probably even more significant. Considering there's also a big pool of water separating the two areas, I don't think there would be any linguistic mixing (just a lot of mutual influence).
I feel the need to comment on this.
In other words: what is the advantage of exchanging one religous fanatic for another one for the regents in Holland?
The English thought the non-committent answers of the Dutch regents meant an actual union was in the cards, while the Dutch wanted nothing to do with the English alliance proposal against Spain and the proposed union was completely out of the question. As you mentioned, the Dutch were only interested free trade with English port and colonies, which was unacceptable for the English.
The only threat that would spook the Dutch enough to accept a union is if they would face an existential external threat, like when they offered the crown to Elizabeth in the 1570's.
That is indeed completely true.
Mostly a matter of common interests I would say. Realpolitik in other words.
I would be carefull with the term ideological here. While both were Protestant and Cromwell's puritanism had many similarities with Dutch Calvinism, (especially the Contraremonstrant faction of William II) the regents opposing William II generally adhered to a much more relaxed interpretation of Calvinism (as well as being quite tolerant of other religions like Catholics and Jews). Naturally, William II courted the more straight-lined Protestant faction in the Netherlands.
In other words: what is the advantage of exchanging one religous fanatic for another one for the regents in Holland?
The question is how? William II as stadholder was in command of both fleet and army. An external threat would be the best way to improve his position. That's why he was against the peace treaty with Spain in 1648.
I don't see that. William II (or actually William Frederick, stadholder of Friesland) failed in taking Amsterdam, but the actual coup was a smashing succes, with his opponents removed from power and/or imprisoned. William II and conservative calvinists he relied on were in full control after the coup. The problem for that faction was that he fell ill and died a few months later.
I disagree, as stated before.
That's really unlikely, as both sides were completely on opposing sides of the negotiations.
The English thought the non-committent answers of the Dutch regents meant an actual union was in the cards, while the Dutch wanted nothing to do with the English alliance proposal against Spain and the proposed union was completely out of the question. As you mentioned, the Dutch were only interested free trade with English port and colonies, which was unacceptable for the English.
While this would be smart, it would be a bit difficult to remove the familiy (especially the mother!) of the son of William II from Holland. There was still a strong Orangist faction even without a stadholder in power.
I think it would be extremely unlikely, as both sides had too many conflicting interests, especially over trade. It is telling that in the quarter century after 1650, they went to war with eachother three times.
If William II survives, he has all the power certainly no interest in sharing it.
The only threat that would spook the Dutch enough to accept a union is if they would face an existential external threat, like when they offered the crown to Elizabeth in the 1570's.
I thank you for your support. If I ever get down to it, I'll let you know!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. All the stuff below is really useful.
Going down the list...:
... but can't that illustrate that the two sides can cooperate? Surely somebody could defend the case that the England and Holland aided each other in times of serious need, and consequently have a precedent of working together, rather than division?
Wasn't there an influx of Jews into the British Isles from the Netherlands around this period, and didn't they contribute significantly to resolving the damage caused by the civil war? I think that the Cromwellians could, with a little persuasion, see the major importance of this. Religious freedom, after all, would have to be improved as a whole anyway if a merger with the Dutch was to take place - and as you know, he was very keen for this to happen in OTL.
I'm up for suggestions, although I think the previously suggested theory of an English intervention to save the Dutch Republic seems the most likely bet. If William's military power is defeated, then he has no power left.
OK - so you're suggesting that a surviving William would actually be a larger threat to the proposed union. Intriguing (and see above...?)
So if they were more/less committent, then the scenario would have been perceived differently. They'd have to be more committent for a union, and this ties in with everything above on William to determine how that's possible.
Hmmmmmm.
Surely, though, if a union was to take place, they'd all have to scram. THere might be some considerable resistance, but it seems feasible that the English could have resolved that forcefully. It might actually make them a nice propaganda victory, as well.
Telling maybe, but if - as stated at the opening of my original post - they (understandably) focused on unity rather than disunity. Surely in a union with England, however, the Dutch would be in a far better position - a well-defended and expanded merchant fleet, trading with the British mainland for no or little cost, a guarantee for 'independence' and a religious similarity. I think that seems a pretty good deal, although I'm sure you can provide a few counterarguments!
Many thanks for all your help - I may need a little more, yet!
This lends itself for an interesting settlement of the new world. In a British-Dutch union, We really need a good name for this country, maybe Great Doggerland or as one of my sons just suggested "The Brituch Empire", here will at least six different groups speaking seven different languages, counting Scots as a different language.
The languages would be
English
Dutch
Frise
Welch
Cornish
Scots
Gaelic
The languages would be
English
Dutch
Frise
Welch
Cornish
Scots
Gaelic
Such experiences will certainly help, but I feel there's quite a leap from an alliance of convenience to a feeling of wanting to share a state together.
Remember the Dutch had just fought a war to gain their independence from Spain. Being taken over by England a few years later would generate a lot of resistance.
I was more referring to the fact the faction in Holland Cromwell would have to rely on would be the faction most likely to oppose him on religious grounds.
Freedom of religion was more an example of their views in general.
From what? William II (and all his family members before and after him) was also interested in 'saving' the Dutch Republic. He just had a different vision about the way the state should be organized. He was actually more interested in the Republic as an actual state than the regents in Hollands, who saw the Republic as a confederacy where Holland was first among equals.
William II could count on the support of all the other six provinces (some of them through his cousin William Frederick as the other stadtholder in the Republic) and a bit less than half of the voting cities in Holland. The regents controlled a slight majority of these cities and thus Holland as a whole. Thanks to the overwhelming economic position of Holland, they then greatly influenced the direction of the Republic as a whole.
Definately. William II was in full control at the time of his death and a union was out of the question.
They were definately not interested in any kind of union, but their initial answers left room for interpretation and led to English frustration. (and eventually the First Anglo-Dutch War)
I don't think so. The Republic had one of the most advanced armies of Europe at the time and was rich enough to quickly raise even more troops. (see the French invasion of 1672 for reference)
In this scenario (the people dissatisfied with William II calling in Cromwell) the English Commonwealth can at most rely on the support of about half the cities of Holland. The other provinces and the Orangist cities of Holland would be firmly opposed and likely flock to the banner of William Frederick as their protector.
The Dutch merchant fleet was already as large as it would get. Better defended, yes, but only because the most likely privateers (Englsih) would be on the same side. The Dutch fleet was also reasonably capable of defending the merchant ships in the 17th century, so it's not like the merchant ships were unprotected.
The Navigation Acts in OTL didn't affect the Dutch trade much anyway, as most of the profitable trade was with France and Iberia. So not a real advantage.
Which was already achieved with their own independent state.
In addition, the union with England would lead to involvement in wars the Dutch were not interested in and where the fighting would naturally take place in the Netherlands itself. The trade and colonies would slowly be taken over by the English as superior weight of numbers in this union starts to tell.
And they are there!
Thanks for your suggestion, since it shows me how people don't read my opening posts.
But he said "except" the throne.
[snark]Clearly he means that the Netherlands become part of Britain politically, but remain a republic, as she (presumably) accepted the Netherlands, but excepted the throne.[/snark]But he said "except" the throne.
Elizabeth I of England, Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic? Actually not a bad idea, if you can make it happen.