Anglo-Dutch personal union

WI William III and Mary II had a son. He would be the heir to the throne of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales and to the Stadtholdership of the Netherlands, perhaps paving the way for a political union between the two countries.
From when on is political union plausible? Is the Kingdom of Great-Britain still formed? What consequences would it have in the medium- and long-term?
 
I ahve always been doubtful of true union between the Netherlands and England in such a case. I am even far from certain the personal union would continue. One thing people often forget is that a stadholder is not the same thing as a king. A stadholder had far less influence in the Netherlands than kings had in other countries. In early-modern Netherlands a power struggle existed between the stadholder and the rich merchant, which the rich merchants (regents) often won, which is why there existed 2 stadholderless periods.

Another thing to remember is the Willem III was not stadholder of all of the Netherlands. Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe had another stadholder, while Brabant, Dutch Flanders etc. had no stadholder at all.

Last and very important, the office of stadholder was not heridairy. It was not a certainty that the eldest son of the former stadholder would succeed his father (although this usualy was the case). This is the reason why the Frisian stadholders became (after a stadholderless period) the next stadholder after Willem III died without leaving a son, even though the ruler of Brandenburg was closer related to Willem III.

The thing that would happen in my opinion, is that after William III's death his son would succeed him as king and as stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel. But as England is the larger, more populated and more powerful part of the "personal union" he would focus his attention more on England (and maybe Scotland) than on the Netherlands. The Dutch would start to resent that they are minor partner in the union and after the stadholder/king's death would push for either a different stadholder (like the Frisian stadholders, or maybe a second son who wouldn't inherit the English throne) or maybe for another stadholderless period and thus ending the personal union.


This is my opinion though, other think differently about it. Read for example Flocc's timeline The Anglo-Dutch Empire
 
I was reading about Frisian the other day, the language that is and I thought it looked like an interesting area to explore further by timeline. Where the POD would be that the language retains and expands and challenges/supplants the rise of OTL Dutch, with the point being that a Frisian dominated *Netherlands would potentially be a better fit with England, if just due to language similarities.
 
I ahve always been doubtful of true union between the Netherlands and England in such a case. I am even far from certain the personal union would continue. One thing people often forget is that a stadholder is not the same thing as a king. A stadholder had far less influence in the Netherlands than kings had in other countries. In early-modern Netherlands a power struggle existed between the stadholder and the rich merchant, which the rich merchants (regents) often won, which is why there existed 2 stadholderless periods.

Another thing to remember is the Willem III was not stadholder of all of the Netherlands. Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe had another stadholder, while Brabant, Dutch Flanders etc. had no stadholder at all.


Last and very important, the office of stadholder was not heridairy. It was not a certainty that the eldest son of the former stadholder would succeed his father (although this usualy was the case). This is the reason why the Frisian stadholders became (after a stadholderless period) the next stadholder after Willem III died without leaving a son, even though the ruler of Brandenburg was closer related to Willem III.
The position is somewhat akin to the king of Poland, right?
The thing that would happen in my opinion, is that after William III's death his son would succeed him as king and as stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel. But as England is the larger, more populated and more powerful part of the "personal union" he would focus his attention more on England (and maybe Scotland) than on the Netherlands. The Dutch would start to resent that they are minor partner in the union and after the stadholder/king's death would push for either a different stadholder (like the Frisian stadholders, or maybe a second son who wouldn't inherit the English throne) or maybe for another stadholderless period and thus ending the personal union.


This is my opinion though, other think differently about it. Read for example Flocc's timeline The Anglo-Dutch Empire
I've read it, that's what prompted me to post this thread in the first place, in fact. It is an entertaining reading but there are many points I don't agree with.
 
I was reading about Frisian the other day, the language that is and I thought it looked like an interesting area to explore further by timeline. Where the POD would be that the language retains and expands and challenges/supplants the rise of OTL Dutch, with the point being that a Frisian dominated *Netherlands would potentially be a better fit with England, if just due to language similarities.


pretty much far out ASB

The position is somewhat akin to the king of Poland, right?
Don't know how the position of the polish king was, but a stadhouder is more comparable to a Heriditary Presidency, and then not even a powerful president like in the US, but more like the French one.
In the end the parliament is the real ruler.
 
Last edited:
I was reading about Frisian the other day, the language that is and I thought it looked like an interesting area to explore further by timeline. Where the POD would be that the language retains and expands and challenges/supplants the rise of OTL Dutch, with the point being that a Frisian dominated *Netherlands would potentially be a better fit with England, if just due to language similarities.

pretty much far out ASB

Essentially this. Frisia for a long time consisted of a load of autonomous, semi-marsh based town and village communities, which Holland claimed suzerainty over. They had no ability to assert dominance over the Netherlands and even if they had the numbers and the strength, they didn't have any sort of cohesive government etc. It's comparable to saying "what if the Scottish Highland tribes dominated the British Isles in the 1400s?"

The position is somewhat akin to the king of Poland, right?

Don't know how the position of the polish king was, but a stadhouder is more comparable to a Heriditary Presidency, and then not even a powerful president like in the US, but more like the French one.
In the end the parliament is the real ruler.

The Polish situation was worse in many ways, as the de jure status of King of Poland was stronger than in the Netherlands, yet de facto the Sejm (Parliament) overruled the King time and again. In the Netherlands the King was limited, but at least people tended to listen to them and do what they said, even if they did talk behind the King's back of ending the rule of Kings after the present sovereign at any given time.

Of course, the interesting position in this is that the Stadtholdership was two-sided - the Dutch could do nothing to prevent William's heirs taking up his legal titles (Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Guelders and Overijssel), yet had the power to discontinue the position of the King. It had been discussed on this site before, but if they did that then it's therefore possible for the King of Great Britain to be in Personal Union with half of the territories of the Netherlands independently, and yet exert no actual control over the country itself. It's comparable, if you like, with being crowned Duke of Aquitaine, Berry, Anjou, Normandy and Burgundy yet not being King of France - the difference being in this case, they probably wouldn't be able to just manipulate their power to dominate the Netherlands whereas in France, someone with that many titles could likely storm Paris and be King in a week.
 
Essentially this. Frisia for a long time consisted of a load of autonomous, semi-marsh based town and village communities, which Holland claimed suzerainty over. They had no ability to assert dominance over the Netherlands and even if they had the numbers and the strength, they didn't have any sort of cohesive government etc. It's comparable to saying "what if the Scottish Highland tribes dominated the British Isles in the 1400s?"





The Polish situation was worse in many ways, as the de jure status of King of Poland was stronger than in the Netherlands, yet de facto the Sejm (Parliament) overruled the King time and again. In the Netherlands the King was limited, but at least people tended to listen to them and do what they said, even if they did talk behind the King's back of ending the rule of Kings after the present sovereign at any given time.

Of course, the interesting position in this is that the Stadtholdership was two-sided - the Dutch could do nothing to prevent William's heirs taking up his legal titles (Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Guelders and Overijssel), yet had the power to discontinue the position of the King. It had been discussed on this site before, but if they did that then it's therefore possible for the King of Great Britain to be in Personal Union with half of the territories of the Netherlands independently, and yet exert no actual control over the country itself. It's comparable, if you like, with being crowned Duke of Aquitaine, Berry, Anjou, Normandy and Burgundy yet not being King of France - the difference being in this case, they probably wouldn't be able to just manipulate their power to dominate the Netherlands whereas in France, someone with that many titles could likely storm Paris and be King in a week.
Thanks for this enlightening explanation.
Though in the XVIIIth century the idea of nationalism is basically unknown, so the inhabitants of the said provinces wouldn't mind that someone else is reigning in, say, Groningen.
 

Thande

Donor
I see. Well you got me interested as well, so here is a brief sketch on how I would do it if I was writing a TL based on the subject.
 
Thanks for this enlightening explanation.
Though in the XVIIIth century the idea of nationalism is basically unknown, so the inhabitants of the said provinces wouldn't mind that someone else is reigning in, say, Groningen.

I'm not so sure about that, especially considering the two states had been at war with each other three times in the previous 60-ish years, and considering that the Eighty Years War had done wonders for creating a Dutch feeling of unity.
 
I'm not so sure about that, especially considering the two states had been at war with each other three times in the previous 60-ish years, and considering that the Eighty Years War had done wonders for creating a Dutch feeling of unity.
It had also been what amounts to an English protectorate under the Treaty of Nonsuch during the same war... But you're probably right.
 
pretty much far out ASB


Don't know how the position of the polish king was, but a stadhouder is more comparable to a Heriditary Presidency, and then not even a powerful president like in the US, but more like the French one.
In the end the parliament is the real ruler.

Oh I expect you are right, but it is one of those things I'd like to see all the same. The idea of English having a mutually intelligible neighbouring language/culture/ country in Europe right until modern times is neat, if unrealistic.
 
Oh I expect you are right, but it is one of those things I'd like to see all the same. The idea of English having a mutually intelligible neighbouring language/culture/ country in Europe right until modern times is neat, if unrealistic.

What? The Scottish accent isn't that thick ;)
 
Top