Culture of Anglo-Dutch Union?

Thande

Donor
Hmm. I would say yes, for a generation. After that you have two eventualities, both of which arguably ruin the interest factor. One is that France seeks to annex Holland and sap its resources, money, etc for the benefit of France, and thus it becomes about as interesting as any other part of France. The other is that the risk of the above, tied with the way they've given up Catholic Spain for Catholic France and so on, mean that the Dutch turn on the French and militarily seek independence once more, resulting in a second slow struggle for independence involving much sieging of cities and flooding of land and no set piece battles at all. I regard the other two options (plus Option D - independence a la OTL) as being the option most likely to create the most interesting long-term Dutch story.

I was thinking that a French-allied Dutch revolt, coupled to France's border with modern Belgium, means that the French would be able to drive the Spanish out of the southern Netherlands and mean that the eventual Dutch state encompasses the whole of the Low Countries.

Sure, as you say, a generation down the line the Dutch might break with France...but the two options there are 1) a fully independent Dutch state that includes the whole of the Low Countries and is therefore much more powerful than the OTL Dutch state, or 2) the French manage to hold on to the Southern Netherlands and it becomes part of France's natural borders.

Given that pretty much every European war after this point was fought over and/or in the Southern Netherlands, this has the potential to massively change things.


EDIT: I also like the possibility that Pompejus and Faeelin mention--Dutch-Brandenburg union!
 
Last edited:
It does, and your option 2 is quite likely. However, my point was that it rather kills off the idea of an interesting Franco-Dutch culture, in an attempt to hark back to the OP. Rather you'd just get a Dutch-speaking outpost of French culture, and even that would likely slow become Francophone.

Still, you are absolutely right, the ripples would be huge.
 

Thande

Donor
It does, and your option 2 is quite likely. However, my point was that it rather kills off the idea of an interesting Franco-Dutch culture, in an attempt to hark back to the OP. Rather you'd just get a Dutch-speaking outpost of French culture, and even that would likely slow become Francophone.

I get what you're saying. I've often wondered what would happen to the Netherlands culturally and linguistically if the 1812 European borders had lasted a few generations.

1000px-Dep-fr.svg.png
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I get what you're saying. I've often wondered what would happen to the Netherlands culturally and linguistically if the 1812 European borders had lasted a few generations.
To say nothing about how continued direct French rule may have effected the cultures of Catalonia and Dalmatia. Tuscany may very well remain quintessentially Italian.
 
I was thinking that a French-allied Dutch revolt, coupled to France's border with modern Belgium, means that the French would be able to drive the Spanish out of the southern Netherlands and mean that the eventual Dutch state encompasses the whole of the Low Countries.

Sure, as you say, a generation down the line the Dutch might break with France...but the two options there are 1) a fully independent Dutch state that includes the whole of the Low Countries and is therefore much more powerful than the OTL Dutch state, or 2) the French manage to hold on to the Southern Netherlands and it becomes part of France's natural borders.

You are talking about the start of the Dutch revolt, right (when Elizabeth and the king of France were offered the Dutch crown)? In that case there was no such thing as the southern Netherlands. There was just Spanish occupied Netherlands and Free Netherlands and certainly at the start of the war those did not match the Belgium-Dutch border. Looking at the Union of Utrecht, the provinces that decided to rebel against the Spanish, it more or less included all Dutch speaking parts, including Flanders and (most of) southern Brabant. If you look at what the Spanish managed to subdue in a short time after, it included large parts of what is now the Netherlands, including parts like Friesland. The idea of the southern Netherlands only came into being when after 80 year of war against the Spanish, the Dutch did not manage to recapture the southern parts of the Netherlands. So there would be no southern Netherlands only the Netherlands, assuming of course the French manage to conquer/free it all from Spain.

About Dutch culture in such a scenario. Assuming France does manage to capture it all. Possible, but hard. Although I must admit France probably wouldn't stop trying to conquer the rest, just because it wasn't profitable. It realy depends on how France develops. The Dutch (including the Belgians) were an independent people, which is why they revolted against Spain. So they would try to keep that independence. I think it will remain very different from the rest of France, possibly keeping its own language, customs and possibly religion. I think if France wants to bring it in closer with the rest of France, the Dutch might rebel again, maybe losing. As long as the French leave the Dutch alone and let them trade with whoever they want, the Dutch will be happy. If the French start to demand unreasonable demands (like 10%tax), than they will have some trouble. Whatever happens, I think it will remain culturally distinct from France, if only because the way they became part of France (they asked to join) and because it will become a very important and wealthy part of France (assuming the French kings will let them).

If France keep the 1812 border, it will be hard for the French to assimilate all of the Dutch/Flemish/German parts, certainly as (at least in the Netherlands) nationalism rose high. The Dutch were proud to be Dutch and not French and they started to hate the French for the occupation, even forgetting old internal problems (Orangism vs Patriotism for example). The French either need to convince both themselves as the Dutch/Flemish that Dutch culture is part of the French culture (because Charlemagne was born in the region, because the Dutch speak Low-Franconian and not German, etc.) or they will have a very, maybe not rebellious, but at least troublesome regions in the North. Certainly with the rise of German nationalism they could start seeing themselves more as Germans than as French and start supporting any German attempts to conquer the region (in my opinion the only way to get the Dutch join Germany voluntairy after 1648.

Anyhow, this thread was about an Anglo-Dutch union. As I said I don't think it will last, at least not through a stadholder. Queen Elizabeth might work, assuming she can hold it and manage to drive away the Spanish. In that case it is probably too far away from England to realy become assimilated into English culture.
 

Thande

Donor
You are talking about the start of the Dutch revolt, right (when Elizabeth and the king of France were offered the Dutch crown)? In that case there was no such thing as the southern Netherlands. There was just Spanish occupied Netherlands and Free Netherlands and certainly at the start of the war those did not match the Belgium-Dutch border. Looking at the Union of Utrecht, the provinces that decided to rebel against the Spanish, it more or less included all Dutch speaking parts, including Flanders and (most of) southern Brabant. If you look at what the Spanish managed to subdue in a short time after, it included large parts of what is now the Netherlands, including parts like Friesland. The idea of the southern Netherlands only came into being when after 80 year of war against the Spanish, the Dutch did not manage to recapture the southern parts of the Netherlands. So there would be no southern Netherlands only the Netherlands, assuming of course the French manage to conquer/free it all from Spain.
Yes I know all that, I was just using "Southern Netherlands" as a geographic term because calling the area "Belgium" feels uncomfortably anachronistic in this context.
 
All the options presented here for the anglo-Dutch union are peaceful ones, stemming from free choice.
What if during the glorious revolution Williams demands are not met, and instead of going back home as he threatened, he gets angry with them for some reason, and he orders the dutch soldiers that are now in the uk to turn the glorious revolution into a glorious invasion. Essentially repeating what his earlier namesake did, conquering the british isles.

How would a union look like that was formed this way.
 
If you want an Anglo-Dutch Union that could last, you'll need to go back to the rebellion itself. IIRC there was talk of offerring the crown to Elizabeth I.

How would Elizabeth's reign, with its OTL noted lack of tolerance for Catholics, preside over a Free Netherlands with a small Catholic minority? England has just begun to end a fifty-year religious war. How could the Tudors merely switch towards a level of tolerance?

Would Elizabeth spur the Dutch Calvinists to expel the remaining Catholics?
 
Top