An Orange Empire

Asami

Banned
King_William_III_of_England%2C_%281650-1702%29_%28lighter%29.jpg

An Orange Empire

Wilhelmus van Nassouwe
Ben ick van Duytschen bloet,
Den Vaderlant getrouwe
Blyf ick tot in den doet...


The reign of
William III of Orange-Nassau (1689-1702)
Mary II Stuart (1689-1697)

The reign of William III van Oranje-Nassau is well remembered as the beginning of the most successful British dynasty in it's history as a state. The story of the reign of William III 'the Great' of England begins in 1688, when William, as Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic, was formally invited by Protestant lords to overthrow James II of Scotland, who had held the crown of England, and was unraveling the Protestant order set in place by previous monarchs.

The invasion marked the beginning of a new Protestant reign, however, it was not without troubles. In the following year of 1689, trouble erupted between William and Parliament as many insisted that he reign only as Consort or until the death of his wife, at which time the crown would pass to an heir.

William outright refused both proposals, as did his wife, Mary -- the condition of continued Dutch-ensured peace and the prevention of Catholicism from returning to plague England remained that William be the sole ruler -- or at least, co-ruler, equal in power to his fair wife.

Parliament finally conceded to their new monarch his terms, only if he signed off on a Bill of Rights. Agreeing to such terms, William III and Mary II were both crowned in Westminster Abbey in April 1689, marking the beginning of the new age for England.

The Scottish and Irish parliaments agreed to allow William III to reign as their monarch for a time, as the Scottish parliamentarians agreed that a Protestant Dutchman was a preferable monarch to a Catholic Scotsman. In order to secure a base of power for the Orange-Nassau family in England, knowing that if his wife died, he would be unable to retain the throne for his progeny.

William III spent no time trying to gain an heir from Mary, even as France turned a lazy eye back toward the situation on the North Sea. James Stuart continued to boil revolt amongst England's ranks by his Jacobite followers. Irish parliamentarians soon broke William III's fealty and declared James the "rightful King of Ireland" in 1690.

Anglo-Dutch armies involved themselves in Ireland, pressing hard to defeat the army that James had gathered from French backing and uppity Catholic lords in Ireland.

While the Stuart Rebellion went on in Ireland, Mary announced to the court she was with child in mid 1690, and was in labor delivering her child by early 1691. The birth was proclaimed with much mirth. William was delighted that a progeny had been secured for the Anglo-Dutch Union. His son, named Henry, was named Prince of Wales to further secure his right of succession.

The Jacobites in the country were miffed at the idea of a Orange Prince succeeding William, to further strengthen the right to the throne, since Prince Henry was indeed the descendant of a Stuart and had right to the throne, technically. A period of revolt erupted in parts of England which had Jacobite sympathies. However, the army made work to suppress the revolts and fight the Irish War.

William's army finally won victory over James Stuart in Ireland in 1691, and James returned to exile in France. The victory over James Stuart was of great relief to William, who then turned to an interior effort to strengthen his reign and the English state.

Scotland was not entirely subdued, however. Through his coronation and after, rebellions smattered the Scottish countryside. William struggled to deal with these problems, numerous times. In 1692, he managed to secure several clans loyalty by promising them no harm would befall them if they agreed to stop rebelling against him and accept his authority. The Parliament was put off by such things, as it meant that these Jacobite sympathizers remained with their lands and power over land, however, they remained tight-lipped as the violence had subsided significantly.

But the Nine Years War should not be discounted as a major part of William's reign. the French King was waging an expensive, expansive war against most of Europe and faring decently against them, and remained unsupportive of William's claim to England's throne. In frustration, William departed England for a period of time in 1692 to lead armies against France. With less stress on his mind now that the rebellions in Britain were suppressed, and he had a son to succeed him upon his death, he marched against France and managed to net several key battles in the Spanish Netherlands against them.

This deteriorated the morale of the French army, as they progressed into 1693 and 1694, the French army began to lose more battles than they previously had, and also began to hemorrhage money to replace the ships and soldiers lost to battle against William III and others.

An unfortunate period of weather in late 1694 caused havoc on the French country, with food shortages and discontent ripping through the state. Several peasant revolts erupted in Southern France, forcing Louis XIV to favor putting them down over continuing his campaigns.

Soon enough, France found itself in the midst of a great famine, forcing Louis XIV to seek terms of peace with the Grand Alliance in March 1695. The terms were not entirely harsh, but weren't favorable either. Alsace and Lorraine were both lost to the aggressive Frenchman, as was all land East of the Rhine River which he had brought to heel before France.

Spain recovered a series of territories from France, which strengthened the beleaguered, once nearly hegemonic empire. France, did, however, recover Pondicherry in India after paying the Netherlands a significant amount of reparation, as well as recognizing William III as King of England. The end of the Nine Years War allowed William III to play his role as a dual monarch, and educate his son.

In 1696, William was struck with personal tragedy as his co-ruler and his wife, Mary, died in childbirth delivering his second child. He became the sole ruler of England, Scotland and Ireland, and was struck with depression for a period of time. The Jacobite movement was marginalized with France now backing William III's claim to the throne. James Stuart became an embittered man, and never gave up his right to the throne, but went into seclusion after the Treaty of Ryswick, dying in 1701.

William III's reign remained modestly popular as he continued to bring the Netherlands and Britain close together. His fears over the Spanish succession were not without some level of truth behind them. However, Spain had been significantly alienated by the French invasion. With no clear successor, Spain's nobility agreed to the succession of Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria to the Spanish throne upon the death of the King. He renounced right to succeed his father in Bavaria, and was named Prince of Asturias in 1698.

Outside of this, the Spanish nobility, under fear of becoming a French vassal state by means of succession of some descendant of Louis XIV, agreed to a Dutch-German proposal of protection in exchange for some territory. Some North Italian land would be given to the HRE, and Flanders to the Netherlands in exchange for protection from French aggression, should they decide to dispute the inheritance of Joseph Ferdinand.

In 1701, Charles II of Spain died. While the Spanish nobility recognized the succession of Joseph Ferdinand (Ferdinand VI of Spain), France contested the succession of Joseph Ferdinand, holding that a descendant of Louis XIV should be King. The crisis nearly escalated into a full fledged war when Louis XIV backed down on the advice of several nobles who were dealing with very riotous peasants who were still suffering knock on effects from the food riots of just a few years prior.

The diplomatic resolution of the events of the Spanish Question won William III and the Holy Roman Emperor recognition as "powerful and diplomatic men" across Europe. However, William III's happiness in this case was short lived --

William III 'the Great' of the House Orange-Nassau passed away on the 8th of March 1702. He was 51 years old at the time, and was the first monarch of the House Orange-Nassau. He was succeeded in England, Scotland and Ireland by his 11 year old son, Henry IX & I of England, Scotland and Ireland. The same son inherited the title Prince of Orange and as well, Stadtholder. His Dutch regency involved several high Dutch nobles and politicians.

((I wanted to do a little TLIAP(?) on William III. I might continue this, but I'm not really good with this part of history, infact, I'm downright trash at it. Like the possibly horribly ahistorical snuffing of the War of Spanish Succession by some quick diplomatic tabulation and increased fears of French aggression. Hope you liked it. I may come back and write the reign of Henry IX, but I don't know what would really work. So, this is all you get... for now.))
 
Last edited:
While this is interesting its basically ASB. First, William and Mary wed in 1677 and were childless, so Mary having a child in 1691 would be HIGHLY questionable at best and at worst would see a repeat of the accusations that surrounded the birth of James Francis Edward in 1688 (warming pan theory). Second, France would NEVER cede lands to Spain. Period. And considering the strength of the French army, I can't see Louis XIV being forced to agree to any peace that he didn't like. Remember that in the OTL Nine years war France fought basically all of Europe to a standstill and still came out victorious. Third, France AGREED to the succession of the Electoral Prince in Spain, as they received the Spanish Italian territories of Naples and Sicily for the Dauphin and his second son (OTL Philip V). It was SPAIN who objected to the Partition treaties, determined to leave the entire Spanish empire to the designated successor (which is what they did OTL with Philip V). Finally, NO ONE in England liked William III, so no way he'd be called "the Great".

In all an interesting idea but one that would need a bunch of research and a rewrite to be serious. So if you do intent to expand this I would urge you to consider reworking this into something more historically correct.
 

Asami

Banned
While this is interesting its basically ASB. First, William and Mary wed in 1677 and were childless, so Mary having a child in 1691 would be HIGHLY questionable at best and at worst would see a repeat of the accusations that surrounded the birth of James Francis Edward in 1688 (warming pan theory). Second, France would NEVER cede lands to Spain. Period. And considering the strength of the French army, I can't see Louis XIV being forced to agree to any peace that he didn't like. Remember that in the OTL Nine years war France fought basically all of Europe to a standstill and still came out victorious. Third, France AGREED to the succession of the Electoral Prince in Spain, as they received the Spanish Italian territories of Naples and Sicily for the Dauphin and his second son (OTL Philip V). It was SPAIN who objected to the Partition treaties, determined to leave the entire Spanish empire to the designated successor (which is what they did OTL with Philip V). Finally, NO ONE in England liked William III, so no way he'd be called "the Great".

In all an interesting idea but one that would need a bunch of research and a rewrite to be serious. So if you do intent to expand this I would urge you to consider reworking this into something more historically correct.

Thanks for the notes. I kind of figured it'd be flagged as ASB by someone with a realm more knowledge than I. Thanks though! I'm not the greatest with this point in history... or any point in history, for that matter. Being the only person in your school with an iota of history knowledge makes you feel really good at it, and then all that ego gets served some humility from y'all. So thanks for keeping me level, I guess. :p
 
Thanks for the notes. I kind of figured it'd be flagged as ASB by someone with a realm more knowledge than I. Thanks though! I'm not the greatest with this point in history... or any point in history, for that matter. Being the only person in your school with an iota of history knowledge makes you feel really good at it, and then all that ego gets served some humility from y'all. So thanks for keeping me level, I guess. :p

Welcome. Its a very interesting, if unexplored topic, William and Mary having a child I mean. I would love to see this turned into a true TL.
 
Would there be a Dutch regency? Or would the Dutch just go into a(nother) stadtholderless period as they did with the death of Willem II and William's own death OTL? Also, the French never completely withdrew their support for the Jacobites (they basically said they would recognize the succession of William & Mary with fingers crossed) since they never expelled the Jacobites from France, like the Regent would later do, and when James II lay dying, one of the things that Louis XIV promised him that he would recognize him as king.
 
While this is interesting its basically ASB. First, William and Mary wed in 1677 and were childless, so Mary having a child in 1691 would be HIGHLY questionable at best and at worst would see a repeat of the accusations that surrounded the birth of James Francis Edward in 1688 (warming pan theory).

According to some sources the reason that Willem and Mary didn't have any children was because of an early misscarriage. If you want the couple to have children, that could be the POD.

Would there be a Dutch regency? Or would the Dutch just go into a(nother) stadtholderless period as they did with the death of Willem II and William's own death OTL?

A stadholderless period is a certainty if the successor isn't an adult yet. Being a stadholder is less of a title and more of a job. I have often said it and will repeat it here, a stadholder is not a king! The main question will be would Holland (and Zeeland) accept Willem's son as stadholder if he comes of age. I guess Gelderland will, if they can get away with it. Holland though might like the idea of not having a stadholder, especialy if the stadholder would be king of England too.
 
A stadholderless period is a certainty if the successor isn't an adult yet. Being a stadholder is less of a title and more of a job. I have often said it and will repeat it here, a stadholder is not a king! The main question will be would Holland (and Zeeland) accept Willem's son as stadholder if he comes of age. I guess Gelderland will, if they can get away with it. Holland though might like the idea of not having a stadholder, especialy if the stadholder would be king of England too.

What are the chances of the Nassau-Dietz branch being able to expand their influence in the Netherlands during the absence of the main branch?
 
What are the chances of the Nassau-Dietz branch being able to expand their influence in the Netherlands during the absence of the main branch?
Reasonably good. It depends on the charisma and competence of the current northern stadholder. The problem though is that the people of Holland will be perfectly content without a stadholder.

So if the son of Willem III is still too young to succeed Willem III as stadholder, Holland will simply not appoint a stadholder (and through the influence of Holland some other provinces will do the same). So the next question will be, what happens when the son of Willem is old enough to be accepted as stadholder? Well, my guess is that at least Gelderland will appoint him as their stadholder (Gelderland has alwaus been the most pro-Orange province), unless Holland forces Gelderland not to do that. Since young Willem has the power of the English army, I don't think Holland would force the issue. Some other provinces might follow, but I could see Holland (and thus Zeeland) remaining without a stadholder as long as reasonably possible.

So would the king of England force himself on the Dutch provinces? I don't know about that. In the end it realy depends on internal Dutch politics, internal English politics, the situation abroad (like various wars being fought) or even the strength of character of the people involved (king, stadholder, raadspensionaris, etc). basicly it is impossible to tell.

All things considered though, I don't think that the kings of England will be stadholders of Holland for ever, unless the British will force themselves on the Dutch. I do consider it possible for the kings of England to be stadholders over part of the country, like Gelderland and Drenthe.
 
While that is certainly possible, the position of (Holland's) Stadholder was largely intertwined with that of Captain-General of the Republic's army. Willem III managed to get that title made officially hereditary, so legality would suggest any son he has gets the title.

Of course, that clashes with the States of Holland wanting to rule themselves, but it also means there's a lot of immediate tension. When Willem II died it was still an appointed title (generally appointed in hereditary fashion, but appointing Willem III to the title made obviously no sense). As such, simply not appointing a new one was doable. In this case, not having a captain-general requires stripping the title from someone - a far more obvious source for conflict.

And, of course, being Stadholder of Gelre and anywhere else is a fairly empty honour without power over the Republic's army - but any Stadholder with power over the army has a good shot at becoming Stadholder in Holland/Zeeland too.
 
While that is certainly possible, the position of (Holland's) Stadholder was largely intertwined with that of Captain-General of the Republic's army. Willem III managed to get that title made officially hereditary, so legality would suggest any son he has gets the title.

Of course, that clashes with the States of Holland wanting to rule themselves, but it also means there's a lot of immediate tension. When Willem II died it was still an appointed title (generally appointed in hereditary fashion, but appointing Willem III to the title made obviously no sense). As such, simply not appointing a new one was doable. In this case, not having a captain-general requires stripping the title from someone - a far more obvious source for conflict.

And, of course, being Stadholder of Gelre and anywhere else is a fairly empty honour without power over the Republic's army - but any Stadholder with power over the army has a good shot at becoming Stadholder in Holland/Zeeland too.

Agreed about the captaincy-general etc. Although I wonder if with a clear heir, Gelre will make their offer to make William III duke (as they did in the 1670s, causing a panic in Amsterdam, William refused in light of that) again.
 
According to some sources the reason that Willem and Mary didn't have any children was because of an early misscarriage. If you want the couple to have children, that could be the POD.



A stadholderless period is a certainty if the successor isn't an adult yet. Being a stadholder is less of a title and more of a job. I have often said it and will repeat it here, a stadholder is not a king! The main question will be would Holland (and Zeeland) accept Willem's son as stadholder if he comes of age. I guess Gelderland will, if they can get away with it. Holland though might like the idea of not having a stadholder, especialy if the stadholder would be king of England too.

So, a son who is 20-ish in 1689?
 

Asami

Banned
Yeah, guys, pardon my abysmal knowledge in the matters of the Dutch Republic in the 17th century. I'm still an infant in terms of learning history and alternate history as well. I really do want to write this timeline in the future, but I guess it'll take some learning before I'm ready. :D

I've learned a few interesting things here though.

So:
  • The stadtholder title is more the less a job rather than a regal title.
  • The Dutch Republic apparently allowed for a region or more to go stadtholderless? Who would be in charge then?
  • What sort of system would be necessary to keep William III popular in Britain?
  • Would the Anglo-Dutch personal union last, or would it dissolve after Willy 3's death in 1702?
  • Mary had a miscarriage in the 1670s, and so maybe next time my POD should be them having a son instead of a miscarriage?
  • What sort of butterflies could really hurt Louis XIV's military campaign? Surely the French weren't completely invulnerable.
  • How could one avert the circumstances that lead to Philip V of Spain rising to power -- replacing him with Ferdinand of Bavaria? It's my understanding that Charles II willed the entire Empire to Philip on his deathbed. Maybe knock Charles II comatose before he can deliver that war-starting will?

I appreciate you guys helping me with understanding this period of time.
 
Last edited:
  • Mary had a miscarriage in the 1670s, and so maybe next time my POD should be them having a son instead of a miscarriage?
That's the PoD most likely... but then by 1689 the son born in 1677 is 12 which may lead to the most interesting situation - namely "invitation of underage King with regents", instead of inviting wholesale foreigner.
  • What sort of system would be necessary to keep William III popular in Britain?
I'm afraid nothing will help - he's a foreigner invading with the army, and only tolerated over hated Papist. I stress the word "tolerated", not "liked" or "popular".
  • How could one avert the circumstances that lead to Philip V of Spain rising to power -- replacing him with Ferdinand of Bavaria? It's my understanding that Charles II willed the entire Empire to Philip on his deathbed. Maybe knock Charles II comatose before he can deliver that war-starting will?
The thing is - with no surviving descendants of Margaret-Theresa AND with Maria-Theresa disqualified the French still ended up with better claim than Austrians, because Anne of Austria was ELDER sister of mother of Leopold I. Philip V was the closest heir not through his disqualified grandmom but through his great-grandmom. With Ferdinand of Bavaria we can at least have some case - and even then some kind of partition is inevitable. But Ferdinand's survival minimizes the extent of War of Spanish Succession. Some partition will happen, but no Spanish Bourbons.
  • What sort of butterflies could really hurt Louis XIV's military campaign? Surely the French weren't completely invulnerable.
If you look for butterflies and not ASB... think of France of 1690ies as Nazi Germany of 1940-1941 - the biggest baddest army in Europe, and Navy is a good contender. So I'm afraid some territorial GAINS are inevitable for France and the losses are venturing in ASB territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Stadtholderless_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Stadtholderless_Period
Also, I'd like you to read those articles to understand the office of Stadtholder better. Wiki, I know, but that's quick and easy summary for getting better acknowledged with time period.

PS. I'm sorry if I'm too harsh. I am glad there's a female user interested in the time period, and I'll do my best to help.
 
Last edited:
  • The stadtholder title is more the less a job rather than a regal title.
  • The Dutch Republic apparently allowed for a region or more to go stadtholderless? Who would be in charge then?
  • Would the Anglo-Dutch personal union last, or would it dissolve after Willy 3's death in 1702?
One thing to remember is that in the 17th century there were actualy 2 stadholders in the Netherlands. Each province appointed their own stadholder and Willem III (and his father and grandfather) was only stadholder of five of the seven provinces (Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Overijssel and Gelderland) and Drenthe (which wasn't an official province because it was too small). The last two provinces had a different stadholder, a relative of Willem III of another branch of the Nassau family. The thing is that Holland was the most important province of the Netherlands, since it was the richest and had the most people in it, so the stadholder of Holland was the most important, prestigeous and powerful of the stadholders.

As I said a stadholder is not a king. For example there could have been more than one stadholder in the Netherlands. Another thing is that a stadholder was not actualy powerful, like a king is, but he is very influential. A strong stadholder, like Willem III can gain a lot of power in the Dutch republic. A weak stadholder (like Willem V) can become almost irrelevant and even be forced to live outside Holland.

One of the main political struggles in the Dutch republic was the struggle of the stadholders versus the regents. The regents were basicly the people who actualy ruled the cities (usualy rich citizens) or the countryside (usualy minor nobles). There always was a struggle who had the most power. Sometimes the stadholder won (like in 1672 with Willem III) sometimes the regents (like in 1650 when the first stadholderless age started).

So who ruled the Netherlands during the stadholderless ages? Well, it depends on how you look at it. The 7 provinces and Drenthe were all rather autonomous. The Dutch republic was a confederation after all. So they looked after themselves and only on a couple of important subjects the dicissions were made federally, by the Estate General. The Estate General was sort of the Dutch parliament with representatives of all the 7 provinces (so not from Drenthe and obviously not from the generality lands). In the Estate General Hollands opinion was the deciding one, since Holland was the strongest, richest and most populated province. Generaly you can say that the "raadspensionaris" of Holland (sort of the highest civil servant) was the most influential person in the Dutch republic during the stadholderless ages.

Would the "personal union" between the Netherlands and England/Scotland continue after Willem III? Well, maybe. It is hard to say. Holland did not like influential Stadholders, since they prefer to do it on their own. Other provinces, like Gelderland, were pro-house of Orange. Personaly, my guess would be that Gelderland and Drenthe would still appoint the English king as stadholder, Friesland and Groningen would keep their own stadholder, while Holland and Zeeland (and possibly Utrecht and Overijssel) would try to get rid of the king of England as stadholder, assuming. There are various options for it, like a stadholderless age or appointing the Frisian branche as stadholder. It also depends on wether they get the chance. For example if a child would become king of England after Willem III, it would be a great chance for a new stadholderless age. If a woman inherits the throne of England, the "personal union" is over. If on the other hand the successor of Willlem III is of age, it becomes a lot harder to ignore him and the chances of him becoming a stadholder of Holland are a lot larger.

On the other hand, since the stadholdership was not hereditary, I think that after a while Holland (at least) would want to get rid of the king of England as stadholder, since he would focus more and more on England, while ignoring Holland (while still making demands from Holland). In the end I think Holland will probably appoint someone else as stadholder than the English king (like for example the Frisian stadholder, but I think a close relative of the king, like his brother, might be another possibility). This could take a couple of generations though.

In the end it is hard to predict what could happen. It all depends on Dutch internal politics, English internal politics*, the wars that are being fought at the time, the personality of the people involved, the economic status, the way the English treat the Dutch (OTL rather terrible), etc.


*sorry Scotland, I don't think you would matter in this case
 

Asami

Banned
That's the PoD most likely... but then by 1689 the son born in 1677 is 12 which may lead to the most interesting situation - namely "invitation of underage King with regents", instead of inviting wholesale foreigner.

I'm afraid nothing will help - he's a foreigner invading with the army, and only tolerated over hated Papist. I stress the word "tolerated", not "liked" or "popular".

So if William and Mary had a living son, born just after their marriage, their reputation in England may possibly be improved? Then again, would William III be able to hold the political capital to remain King after his son reaches majority?

The thing is - with no surviving descendants of Margaret-Theresa AND with Maria-Theresa disqualified the French still ended up with better claim than Austrians, because Anne of Austria was ELDER sister of mother of Leopold I. Philip V was the closest heir not through his disqualified grandmom but through his great-grandmom. With Ferdinand of Bavaria we can at least have some case - and even then some kind of partition is inevitable. But Ferdinand's survival minimizes the extent of War of Spanish Succession. Some partition will happen, but no Spanish Bourbons.

Alright, so, we could possibly see the War of Spanish Succession happen anyway, but the extent being heavily reduced if we have a surviving Ferdinand? How would that play out differently?

If you look for butterflies and not ASB... think of France of 1690ies as Nazi Germany of 1940-1941 - the biggest baddest army in Europe, and Navy is a good contender. So I'm afraid some territorial GAINS are inevitable for France and the losses are venturing in ASB territory.

That seems understandable -- but even Germany in 1940-1941 was not an invincible army, as evidenced by how quickly fortunes changed. Maybe incompetency in the officer class or domestic misfortunes could cause the French momentum to weaken at least a little bit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Stadtholderless_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Stadtholderless_Period
Also, I'd like you to read those articles to understand the office of Stadtholder better. Wiki, I know, but that's quick and easy summary for getting better acknowledged with time period.

PS. I'm sorry if I'm too harsh. I am glad there's a female user interested in the time period, and I'll do my best to help.

You're not too harsh, I thank you for trying to help me understand this part of history. I've had a habit of writing TLs with no real historical research and I end up looking like a jackass. Thank you! I'll read those articles, they'll help. :D

One thing to remember is that in the 17th century there were actualy 2 stadholders in the Netherlands. Each province appointed their own stadholder and Willem III (and his father and grandfather) was only stadholder of five of the seven provinces (Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Overijssel and Gelderland) and Drenthe (which wasn't an official province because it was too small). The last two provinces had a different stadholder, a relative of Willem III of another branch of the Nassau family. The thing is that Holland was the most important province of the Netherlands, since it was the richest and had the most people in it, so the stadholder of Holland was the most important, prestigeous and powerful of the stadholders.

As I said a stadholder is not a king. For example there could have been more than one stadholder in the Netherlands. Another thing is that a stadholder was not actualy powerful, like a king is, but he is very influential. A strong stadholder, like Willem III can gain a lot of power in the Dutch republic. A weak stadholder (like Willem V) can become almost irrelevant and even be forced to live outside Holland.

One of the main political struggles in the Dutch republic was the struggle of the stadholders versus the regents. The regents were basicly the people who actualy ruled the cities (usualy rich citizens) or the countryside (usualy minor nobles). There always was a struggle who had the most power. Sometimes the stadholder won (like in 1672 with Willem III) sometimes the regents (like in 1650 when the first stadholderless age started).

So who ruled the Netherlands during the stadholderless ages? Well, it depends on how you look at it. The 7 provinces and Drenthe were all rather autonomous. The Dutch republic was a confederation after all. So they looked after themselves and only on a couple of important subjects the dicissions were made federally, by the Estate General. The Estate General was sort of the Dutch parliament with representatives of all the 7 provinces (so not from Drenthe and obviously not from the generality lands). In the Estate General Hollands opinion was the deciding one, since Holland was the strongest, richest and most populated province. Generaly you can say that the "raadspensionaris" of Holland (sort of the highest civil servant) was the most influential person in the Dutch republic during the stadholderless ages.

Would the "personal union" between the Netherlands and England/Scotland continue after Willem III? Well, maybe. It is hard to say. Holland did not like influential Stadholders, since they prefer to do it on their own. Other provinces, like Gelderland, were pro-house of Orange. Personaly, my guess would be that Gelderland and Drenthe would still appoint the English king as stadholder, Friesland and Groningen would keep their own stadholder, while Holland and Zeeland (and possibly Utrecht and Overijssel) would try to get rid of the king of England as stadholder, assuming. There are various options for it, like a stadholderless age or appointing the Frisian branche as stadholder. It also depends on wether they get the chance. For example if a child would become king of England after Willem III, it would be a great chance for a new stadholderless age. If a woman inherits the throne of England, the "personal union" is over. If on the other hand the successor of Willlem III is of age, it becomes a lot harder to ignore him and the chances of him becoming a stadholder of Holland are a lot larger.

On the other hand, since the stadholdership was not hereditary, I think that after a while Holland (at least) would want to get rid of the king of England as stadholder, since he would focus more and more on England, while ignoring Holland (while still making demands from Holland). In the end I think Holland will probably appoint someone else as stadholder than the English king (like for example the Frisian stadholder, but I think a close relative of the king, like his brother, might be another possibility). This could take a couple of generations though.

In the end it is hard to predict what could happen. It all depends on Dutch internal politics, English internal politics*, the wars that are being fought at the time, the personality of the people involved, the economic status, the way the English treat the Dutch (OTL rather terrible), etc.


*sorry Scotland, I don't think you would matter in this case

So if William III's hypothetical son remains King of England after his death in 1702; the Orange family will lose some stadtholderships. Okay -- I kind of figured there'd be a power struggle in the Netherlands over subjugating itself to the obviously growing power in London that the King/Stadtholder will focus himself on.

So we could see this hypothetical Anglo-Dutch Union die early on, if the power playing of the Netherlands goes a certain way from England... okay. Seems like there would be an uphill battle for the hypothetical Orange King of England.
 
Not as "improved" but they will be offered a third opinion - since the son of Willem III won't be a guaranteed ruler (Stadtholder is an office, not a title), England won't get in any messy personal unions, and James II can be de jure deposed in favor of his grandson, claim of his mother Mary transferred to her child. Sort of Philip V of Spain situation, just with Brits and Dutch. Nobody wanted foreign ruler, nobody wanted Papist (in OTL foreigner was declared lesser of two evils), but when there's a compromise candidate who's a boy of 12 and is young enough to learn proper "English ways" people will root for him and Willem III may not even get crowned period. The precedent of Queen Regnant in England is fresh enough, both Elisabeth and Mary I had no direct male heirs apparent, while Mary has one, and her claims can be seamlessly transferred to her son (second in line after her if James III is declared illegitimate).
As for making France domestic situation a mess - it WAS messy OTL with exile of Huguenots. I don't know how to get it any messier without ASB intervention. As for competence of officers - what made the army strong was the competence of those - even with purges of Huguenots taken into account.
With surviving Bavarian candidate you'll get at the very maximum the next round of Italian Wars for France, nothing global.
 

Asami

Banned
Not as "improved" but they will be offered a third opinion - since the son of Willem III won't be a guaranteed ruler (Stadtholder is an office, not a title), England won't get in any messy personal unions, and James II can be de jure deposed in favor of his grandson, claim of his mother Mary transferred to her child. Sort of Philip V of Spain situation, just with Brits and Dutch. Nobody wanted foreign ruler, nobody wanted Papist (in OTL foreigner was declared lesser of two evils), but when there's a compromise candidate who's a boy of 12 and is young enough to learn proper "English ways" people will root for him and Willem III may not even get crowned period. The precedent of Queen Regnant in England is fresh enough, both Elisabeth and Mary I had no male heirs, while Mary has one, and her claims can be seamlessly transferred to her son (second in line after her if James III is declared illegitimate).
As for making France domestic situation a mess - it WAS messy OTL with exile of Huguenots. I don't know how to get it any messier without ASB intervention. As for competence of officers - what made the army strong was the competence of those - even with purges of Huguenots taken into account.
With surviving Bavarian candidate you'll get at the very maximum the next round of Italian Wars for France, nothing global.

Okay, that sounds good -- I'll take this into account.

So when Henry reaches majority age, Dad would return to the Netherlands with the Queen Mother, leaving Henry IX van Oranje-Nassau as King of England, and William III van Oranje-Nassau as the Stadtholder of Holland + other provinces, and Prince of Orange.

So when William III does die; does Henry get his dad's stadtholder titles, or will the nobles go "uh, nah"? My impression from you is that it can go either way, depending on the moods of the politics at the time (considering 1702 would be during the War of Spanish Succession or the Italian War alternative if the war is lightened up)
 
Last edited:
Okay, that sounds good -- I'll take this into account.

So when Henry reaches majority age, Dad would return to the Netherlands with the Queen Mother, leaving Henry IX van Oranje-Nassau as King of England, and William III van Oranje-Nassau as the Stadtholder of Holland + other provinces, and Prince of Orange.

So when William III does die; does Henry get his dad's stadtholder titles, or will the nobles go "uh, nah"? My impression from you is that it can go either way, depending on the moods of the politics at the time (considering 1702 would be during the War of Spanish Succession or the Italian War alternative if the war is lightened up)

He may WANT to get the titles - which king won't love more land and money? But the Dutch politicians would be adamant against this and will try everything and anything to avoid the situation. Everything up to next Anglo-Dutch war may ensue.
 

Asami

Banned
He may WANT to get the titles - which king won't love more land and money? But the Dutch politicians would be adamant against this and will try everything and anything to avoid the situation. Everything up to next Anglo-Dutch war may ensue.

Hmm... any real hope of a diplomatic solution that ends with Henry getting his dad's titles?
 
Top