Belgium Netherlands stay united, thoughts?

his 4 sons were born in 1817, 1818, 1820 and 1822.
But that might be irrelevant, if his brother becomes king and he has children, his brothers children will be in the first line for follow up.

As with the capital, i could imagine that the Hague gets formalized as such, after all the center of government was seated there since the 80 year war.
Brussels has the same disadvantage as Amsterdam, too big a city. a'dam would be too much for the south, Brussels too much for the north.The Hague would be a good compromise. Removing the restrictions on catholicism and giving equal representation would most likely be enough to prevent the monster coalition. But it would to be done early, to prevent a build up of bad feelings.

Willem I only could marry his catholic mistress after he abdicated and was no longer king (bit like the edward/wallis simpson situation in the 1930s).
This is the Netherlands we are talking about, the king cannot do what he likes, ever since the Netherlands was founded the stadhouders/ kings were subordinate to parliament. The restriction of power of the monarch has always been a key element here, monarchs were never absolute like they were in other countries. With also a much less influential nobility in comparison with other countries.

edit: just read up a bit, seems that the capital was 1 year in the hague and the other year in brussels, so guess that part was already taken care of
 
Last edited:
Personality goes a long way.

Let's assume that the Dutch king in 1830 had Leopold I's charisma and ruthlessness. He would then mount a quick and successful campaign in response to the unrest.

The French troops sent in support would then be caught loitering around in the territory of a neutral, neighbouring country, merely 15 years after Napoleon's last pick-nick. They have no choice but to surrender, and they are forced to march back to the French border through the most populous cities, where the people get to boo them as scapegoat.
Some of the important figures that supported the independence were captured and are now also executed as traitors.
This results in a surge of popularity for the King, and a rise in anti-France sentiment.

He then proceeds to bind the former opposition to him: he grants, among other things, freedom of religion, which pleases both the liberal opposition and the catholics. The catholics get to organise the schooling system in the south as well, on the condition that they preach loyalty to the king and paint France as an enemy (which can't be a problem, given their anticlerical antics). Continued economic support for the industry seals the deal (the industrialists were the most Orangist in the original timeline already).

Anti-Frenchness naturally drives the United Netherlands into the arms of Prussia. Relations stay good, making it quite possible that Bismarck allows the acquisition of the Congo area. Border conflicts with the French in the northwest will be more vicious, though, so there the border would run completely along the major rivers. On the other hand, the depleted Portugal is no match for the entirety of the Netherlands, and they are somehow booted out of Angola, allowing the Netherlandish possession or influence to continue to expand southward to meet the English. As a result Dutch will remain an important colonial language in Africa, as the Afrikaans wouldn't stray so far with more regular contact with the source.
They have a gentleman's agreement with Prussia and later Germany to limit themselves to the west coast, Germany will concentrate on the east coast. Free access for German traders and ships is promised in that deal (as did Leopold at some time).

Economically, the industrial and agricultural strength of the south combined with the naval and trading tradition of the north proves a potent combination. That will inevitably agonize the UK, though.
If the anti-French sentiment gets out of hand, WWI will be fought with the Netherlands joining Germany/Austria. The only thing certain about that situation is that the Netherlands would be in the front line and suffer greatly. If, on the other hand, they choose to cultivate their neutrality, that will probably distance relations with Germany. It will also prevent WWI, as there is no easy way into France any more. Germany will still ally with Austria, and seek to expand eastward instead. If they are successful, they will come into conflict with Russia and we still get a similar network of alliances as in WW1. (Russia allying with someone to keep Germany tied up).

Internally, the southern industry will attract many workers, for a large part to the province of Hainaut/Henegouwen, that will eventually see Dutch become the dominant language. In tune with the romantic sentiment of the age, the government will allow the Walloon and Letzebuergisch languages, and stimulate them to distinguish themselves from the adjoining French speakers.
 
It might be worse then the curent situation. There is not way the french won't threaten to intervene the country was created against France and France will jump on the occasion to destroy it.
 
It might be worse then the curent situation. There is not way the french won't threaten to intervene the country was created against France and France will jump on the occasion to destroy it.
I don't know. France tried to gain their "natural border" anyway. The big difference with OTL is that there are now less countries with a treaty to protect the Netherlands neutrality, as there were with belgium. Still, I realy doubt Britain would want the Flemish coast in French hands and a little later possibly the Walloon coalfields. The same goes for Prussia. I suspect that if France really tries something, both countries will support the Netherlands.
 
For starters if King Willem I is more ruthless & charismatic that’s going to have severe butterflies before this even happens ( the unrest might not even happen) One of the most complicating factors in the unrest was the supposed involvement of crownprince willem (the later king willem II) in it. If he was really involved in the unrest, it would mean he would be stripped of his titles and right to the throne. His brother Frederick would then later become king, this is a major difference already.
Frederick was seen as competent and very much the peace broker in the family. Frederick does seem like a person who could pull off a reconciliation between north and south.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Frederick_of_the_Netherlands

If the Netherland already is less neutral, or even eyes Germany that could cause even more changes.
The Netherlands could decide to join the one of the German custom-unions. If the German states also start looking more to the west , we might see either a more closer cooperation between them and the Netherlands. This might lead to either a situation where the Netherlands takes the position of otl Prussia or a more balanced German Bund where the Netherlands balances against Prussias influence.
(this last one might be an English nightmare, a greater Germany that pays attention to both Navy and Army) (and Bismarck’s otl important position probably is butterflied away by even a Netherlands that’s is closer to Germany).

If the Netherlands keeps to themselves ties with the UK may stay a bit closer as they still might consider the Netherlands as a buffer).

As for the colonies, that’s totally unpredictable. They may try expanding existing colonies first (like the whole of new guinea) And your guess for them grabbing the Congo area is just as good a guess as anyone’s. When some kind of union with Germany exists then colonisation probably gets even more unpredictable. But likely an earlier rush for colonies, because colonial awareness is already there (this started only later in otl Germany).

If there is a union with Germany a conflict with France is very likely, although the result would totally depend on how many allies it has. But it wouldn’t look like the otl WW1.

In case of a neutral Netherlands, a conflict like WW1 would be one where Britain would not enter as easily as otl (because no violation of the by treaty protected Belgium).
 
I don't know. France tried to gain their "natural border" anyway. The big difference with OTL is that there are now less countries with a treaty to protect the Netherlands neutrality, as there were with belgium. Still, I realy doubt Britain would want the Flemish coast in French hands and a little later possibly the Walloon coalfields. The same goes for Prussia. I suspect that if France really tries something, both countries will support the Netherlands.
It did do something by suporting the belgian revolution.
 
It did do something by suporting the belgian revolution.
True (although in my opinion as a first step to annex it, something the British managed to avoid by interfering), but I was thinking about later, when through some internal changes the Belgians don't wish to revolt.
 
True (although in my opinion as a first step to annex it, something the British managed to avoid by interfering), but I was thinking about later, when through some internal changes the Belgians don't wish to revolt.
Pretty mutch too late by this point. Napoleon did too mutch damage and the dutch break the last straw.
 
Top