Dutch Republic - William III

[unprincipled peter]

OK, so I'd like a discussion on the Dutch Republic in the era of William of Orange. I'd like to learn more about the country.
OTL, William decided, or was persuaded, to take the power of the Dutch Republic and use it to make himself King of England. His wife, Mary, was the top claimant heir to the throne, being the eldest daughter of James, current King of England. William was a little further down in the line, but demanded he was going to be King in his own right, not simply being husband of the Queen. At a time when France was causing havoc in the Palatine, William diverted the Dutch Republic's attention to taking over England in what is known as the Glorious Revolution.

The conventional wisdom says that he, and the Dutch Republic, did so to ensure the survival of the DR. First, is this so? Did he do what he did for his native country? Or did he simply look to upgrade his position? Did he see an opportunity and take it?

Was this a good move for the Dutch? Hind sight, being 20/20, says not really. The DR ended up being linked to England/Britain and spending their last hurrah in the War of Spanish Succession. The Dutch were finished as a great power after the 9 Year War and War of Spanish Succession. the first was under the leadership of William. WoSS was the result of his policies. So, did the DR get their money's worth for their efforts in overthrowing James and putting William on the English throne?

A quick Google search says plenty about England/Britain in the era of William (1688-1702), but little about the Dutch Republic. DR seems to have become simply a puppet of William led England/Britain. Is this so? Did DR become a lackey of England? Was there opposition in DR? Who ran DR in this decade? Decided foreign policy? Were they simply subservient to English policy?

Would DR have been better off fighting France in the 9YW instead of putting the effort into William's Glorious Revolution? Was James led England a threat to the DR? Or was this a story fed to William/DR to entice him into displacing James? I lean towards saying England was not going to join the 9YW on France's side. The 9YW seems to be given little thought, swept under the rug, simply a precursor to the WoSS. Dutch involvement merged/overshadowed by the Glorious Revolution. Could the Dutch have put less effort into the war? I guess there's two questions here: could more Dutch effort directly in the 9YW lead to allied victory, or less Dutch effort (including the Glorious Revolution) leading to same OTL result?

Did William sell out the Dutch? Once he took power in England, did his foreign policy angle toward the Dutch POV? Was his priority his own place of power?

If William had been stillborn, would DR have been better off? He appears to have been a centralizing figure in the French-Dutch War of 1672, but could they have prevailed without him? Seems to me, it was the water defenses that did the job, not William. Or William being killed toward the end of that war. How goes DR?

Sorry if this seems rambling. I'm just thinking about William's place in world history. He usurped a throne, left his own country, and made the priority of both countries a blind opposal of anything Louis XIV wanted. But, was the Dutch Republic on an irreversable downward spiral, or did William do wrong, and DR need not have gone down so hard? And really looking for some insight on the DR post 1688. Was William still calling the shots, and the DR locked into Williams' English foreign policy? Or was the DR an independently governed entity?

 

[ghappy1000]

William III and the Dutch Republic, by taking over England in the Glorious Revolution, did upgrade and secure his native country and itself respectively by putting a less pro-French William III in England instead of allowing England to be more pro-French from 1688-1815.

The Dutch Republic did have worth for its efforts in installing Williams and deposing James because the Dutch Republic's anti-French policy was made independently of England and strengthened both England and the Dutch Republic.

The Dutch would be better off fighting the Nine Years War with England due to England's naval and troop support in that war for the Dutch. Without the Glorious Revolution, the Dutch would need to put more direct effort into that war including effort used in the Glorious Revolution.

William's foreign policy was more pro-Dutch than pro-English to the extent of trying to seize England for himself.

The Netherlands were better off with William III, although William III could have slowed down the Netherlands' decline.

The Dutch Republic was still independently governed despite being in personal union with England from 1688-1702.

 

[HJ Tulp]

The conventional wisdom says that he, and the Dutch Republic, did so to ensure the survival of the DR. First, is this so? Did he do what he did for his native country? Or did he simply look to upgrade his position? Did he see an opportunity and take it?

Both of these are probably true. By changing Jacobite England from a probable enemy to a steadfast ally Dutch survival against France was made possible, and it was a way for Willem III to upgrade his position.

A quick Google search says plenty about England/Britain in the era of William (1688-1702), but little about the Dutch Republic. DR seems to have become simply a puppet of William led England/Britain. Is this so? Did DR become a lackey of England? Was there opposition in DR? Who ran DR in this decade? Decided foreign policy? Were they simply subservient to English policy?

A quick google search is probably going to be in English instead of Dutch so that explains some of it. Of Willem III it was said that he was a King in the Netherlands and a Stadholder in England, as his power was in fact greater in the Republic than in parlimentarian England.

If William had been stillborn, would DR have been better off? He appears to have been a centralizing figure in the French-Dutch War of 1672, but could they have prevailed without him? Seems to me, it was the water defenses that did the job, not William. Or William being killed toward the end of that war. How goes DR?

Good question. We simply don't know. If Willem III is stillborn his uncle Willem Frederik (stadholder of Friesland) probably takes over the leadership of the Orangist party. This could be a boon to them as Willem Frederik wasn't a a baby but an adult. Could his son (if he still dies in that stupid accident) have the same effect in the Rampjaar as WIII? Not sure. Of course there could very well not be a Rampjaar at all.

 

[Hastings]

The Dutch side was dominant in this. William didn't force Dutch to become opposed to France. That had already happened and resulted in him coming to power. The Dutch didn't want a powerful neighbor in the low countries which pre and post-dates William. The Glorious Revolution brought glory to William, but it also shifted a French-leaning neighbor into a fellow bulwark. Frankly the Dutch would have cracked long before 1747 without the English and instead often fighting them. William brought fiscal, etc influence from the Dutch which did inevitably cast them in the shade long-term relative to England who had 4X the population. But it did greatly improve a bad position. Really I think its often been seen the other way. The English got sucked into European affairs and made to build their military by the cooperation. The Franco-Dutch Wars were going to happen, the Franco-English might not.

 

[Parma]

The conventional wisdom says that he, and the Dutch Republic, did so to ensure the survival of the DR. First, is this so? Did he do what he did for his native country? Or did he simply look to upgrade his position? Did he see an opportunity and take it?

As HJ Tulp wrote, no doubt there is a great deal of opportunism in play. How ever it is also part of the European power play of the day. The DR or the Provinces that determined the policy of the DR; Holland, Zeeland in in some part Utrecht were run by the Staatsen or better called Republicans. Their opposition were called the Orangist, or Royalist, striving to a greater power of the house of Orange-Nassau and may be a monarchy.

The Republicans under Pensioner Jan/Johan de Witt made a strategical error by alienating the King of France the overly ambitious Louis XIV. France offered a division plan of the Spanish Netherlands who Joahn de Witt declined for various reasons. Due to diplomatic effort directed by Johan de Witt , Louis XIV had to accept the terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1668), while his armies had overrun France Comte and the Spanish Netherlands in the War of Devolution. Not only did this deprive France most of her conquest but more importantly it was seen as a personal insult by Louis XIV. This was the primary reason of the Dutch war, an invasion of the DR by France in 1672. This gave rise to William III who was also convinced that Louis XIV had to be stopped, not only for the survival of the Dr but as well for the stability of Europe, or at least the sea going nations.

he DR ended up being linked to England/Britain and spending their last hurrah in the War of Spanish Succession. The Dutch were finished as a great power after the 9 Year War and War of Spanish Succession. the first was under the leadership of William. WoSS was the result of his policies. So, did the DR get their money's worth for their efforts in overthrowing James and putting William on the English throne?

You are correct that the War of the Spanish Succession was a direct result of the 9 years war. Although the WoSS did only erupt due to broken treaties and promises by France and Spanish factions.

Would DR have been better off fighting France in the 9YW instead of putting the effort into William's Glorious Revolution? Was James led England a threat to the DR? Or was this a story fed to William/DR to entice him into displacing James? I lean towards saying England was not going to join the 9YW on France's side. The 9YW seems to be given little thought, swept under the rug, simply a precursor to the WoSS. Dutch involvement merged/overshadowed by the Glorious Revolution. Could the Dutch have put less effort into the war? I guess there's two questions here: could more Dutch effort directly in the 9YW lead to allied victory, or less Dutch effort (including the Glorious Revolution) leading to same OTL result?

The 9 years war drew in a stalemate on land and sea and turned into a conflict of attrition. A good example of the unpredictability of war As a detail the war could be ended earlier and in more favourable conditions for William III if the French lost the sea battle of Texel in 1694. An obscure sea battle but crucial for the survival of France. France was financial exhausted and due to weather condition, several crops failed causing serious famine in France. In the Battle of Texel, Jean Bart commanding a small flotilla, engaging with success a Dutch fleet who was escorting a large food convoy which the Dutch confiscated earlier in Sweden. If this convoy did not reach France then Louis IXV was forced to sing a peace treaty which would be ending his ambitions or the threat of France for the next decades.

Could the Dutch put less effort in the war, no. The origins of the 9 years war were partly the Glorious Revolution. Did the DR get value for their monney, it is hard to say. For the 9 years war I would say yes. The contribution on land and sea was very beneficial in the war with France and it prevent that England become a French partner.

The war of the Spanish Succession ended in a disaster for the DR and it was this war which broke the DR. That is the State Dept of the DR grew so astronomical that the interest on the loans took a great deal of the state budget, paralysing the functioning of the DR.

The WoSS was again a war of attrition, although the Allies were far more successful on the battlefields the in the 9 years’ war and nearly broke the French army and were at the end even fighting on French soil. but the DR came out very poor mainly due to diplomatic intrigue of all other participators and plain treason by the British and in some part of the Austrians. But the British treason was main cause of the very poor result for the DR in the Treaty of Utrecht.

Did William sell out the Dutch? Once he took power in England, did his foreign policy angle toward the Dutch POV? Was his priority his own place of power?

No, but the two very long wars and their poor result at the negotiating table gave the DR a very poor result on investment.
Some English saw his policy too Dutch orientated or at least his British adversaries.
Of course, was a large part of selfish ambition, he was raised as a high ranking aristocrat, but as well personal rivalry with Louis XIV. It seams William was convinced Louis XIV was not only a spoiled arrogant man, but a existential threat to the DR and later the UK.

f William had been stillborn, would DR have been better off? He appears to have been a centralizing figure in the French-Dutch War of 1672, but could they have prevailed without him? Seems to me, it was the water defenses that did the job, not William. Or William being killed toward the end of that war. How goes DR?

Hard to say what happened if he was still born or died in infancy. He was asthmatic. The French invasion and the inability to stop this army, caused the power grab of the Orangist party. I doubt if the waterline as an ad-hoc last defence line was the contribution of William III, probably not and the water defence line would happen also without him. William had mixed battle results but acted as a capable leader and rally point. The French invasion would likely not succeed due to French command decisions. This had to do with the desire for glory on the battlefield by Louis XIV. The crux of the French invasion of the DR in 1672 is that there were no great glorious battles or sieges, it was a bit too easy, which caused Louis XIV to make strange and irrational orders and do not forget the infight of the French aristocratic commanders.

The DR had already served under Pensioner Johan de Witt a brilliant diplomat Hieronymus van Beverningh. This man continued to serve under William III. He would probably make the coalition against France to save the Dr as he did under William III

Hieronymus van Beverningh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What many historians forget and in the first place the English is the importance of the Glorious Revolution, or the invasion by the Dutch for England and the United Kingdom.
First since William III was a foreigner parliament took much more power and the United Kingdom was formed.
More important the Dutch introduced their very advanced financial system. It was this very advanced financial system which allowed the Dutch to fight wars with France with armies which were so large the DR was like a boxer fighting, successful, in a heavier weight class than it physically was

This introduction of new financial systems, allowed Great Brittain to fight later wars on the continent in the 18th century as well above its weight. It created the financial base for the dramatic increase in trade and industry in Great Brittain.

 

[Janprimus]

The Dutch side was dominant in this. William didn't force Dutch to become opposed to France. That had already happened and resulted in him coming to power. The Dutch didn't want a powerful neighbor in the low countries which pre and post-dates William. The Glorious Revolution brought glory to William, but it also shifted a French-leaning neighbor into a fellow bulwark. Frankly the Dutch would have cracked long before 1747 without the English and instead often fighting them. William brought fiscal, etc influence from the Dutch which did inevitably cast them in the shade long-term relative to England who had 4X the population. But it did greatly improve a bad position. Really I think its often been seen the other way. The English got sucked into European affairs and made to build their military by the cooperation. The Franco-Dutch Wars were going to happen, the Franco-English might not.

Great post by @Parma!
Here the interests of the Dutch Republic and the first (Hollandic) house of Orange-Nassau (the current second one is the (Frisian) house of Orange-Nassau) intertwine a bit, but only after Willem/William III was called back to become Stadtholder again. The British nowadays often overlook Willem's role in being the defender of the Dutch Republic, against an overwhelming French force. Contemporary Protestants, including British ones, saw him as a hero against a Catholic behemoth, this strengthened his popularity in being the one invited overthrow his father in law James. The Glorious Revolt is twofold, it helped Willem/William was invited and had local support, at the same time the revolting British could not have succeeded without the help of the Dutch forces of Willem/William.
Also Mary Stuart and Willem/William seemed to have been really fond of each other and even with Willem's male favourites (he probably was bisexual), we're very disappointed to not have been blessed with children. So no, I believe Mary wanting a reward for her spouse Willem, who through his mother, another Mary Stuart, who was widowed quite early on, had a upbringing as much Stuart as it was Orange-Nassau.
Please note that I'm a Dutch Catholic from the ancestral lands of Nassau-Breda, so I'm not all that fond of our baron* of Breda, but I digress. (*= actually lord of a 'high' lordship as in direct vassal of in this case the duke of Brabant, baron is a later translation of the position of this particular lordship)

I somewhat disagree, the British greatly benefitted from the things brought in due to the Dutch invasion called the Glorious Revolution, and these Dutch innovations hugely helped Britain's rise to greatness, a fact not much acknowledged. One might argue, it might have come to Britain after France would have overrun the Dutch Republic, though people fleeing would also have gone to places like Prussia and Denmark.
Also I feel that in most conflicts Britain was dragged into due to the Glorious Revolution, were in Britain's interests, maybe in some cases they stayed in longer than needed, due to the Dutch connection. But in the end it benefitted Britain more than the Dutch Republic.

 

[Parma]

Frankly the Dutch would have cracked long before 1747 without the English and instead often fighting them.

No the Dutch would not crack before 1747. In matter of fact the DR was the largest financier of the 9 Years war and WoSS. Also in delivery of manpower the Dutch delivered the most and not only the contracted German armies but a lot of Dutch men. The Dutch did leave the naval defense more and more to the British, who benefitted greatly of it.
Although the in the WoSS the Dutch real Naval strenght was larger than the organic strenght of the British. That is the number of war ships which were of real use and not only ready on paper.
The Dutch had at that time the diplomatic skill to ally with German principalities, scaninaviona Kingdoms and the Holy Roman Empire or the Spanish who were swonr rivals of Louis XIV.

The Dutch Republic cracked after the decades of the WoSS due to the disaster Treaty of Utrecht were the DR did not get any gains which hcould repay the war investments.

 

[unprincipled peter]

So here's an unlikely WI...

After spending all the resources in the Glorious Revolution/9YW, WI the DR decides to sit out the WoSS. Let's conveniently ignore that France has just taken most/all of the Spanish Netherlands with the inside help of Maxmillian Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria and governor of SN. I think the deal with Max was that he got SN in return for his assistance. Louis XIV would later attempt to negotiate SN to Max as compensation for losing Bavaria, but was in no position to achieve it. Here, let's say French diplomacy is a bit more adroit than OTL, and makes it clear that France will not push further, and SN, while in the French orbit, is not given over to a Bourbon. It probably isn't realistic to expect DR to trust Louis XIV, or to believe this is a reasonable buffer state, but that's the POD.

Without the Dutch armies/navy, I'm thinking France wins WoSS in an early timeframe. Philip gets the lion's share of the Spanish Empire, with Louis getting an Italian state to trade for Lorraine.

The 18th century will go much differently with some major butterflies:
-France is in much better shape financially.
-the Bourbon die-off of 1711/12 don't happen as daily routines vary, so the Grand Dauphin doesn't stop to talk to a pox ridden priest, and following family movements are altered so the measles that took the younger Dauphin/wife/eldest son are avoided.
-Philip's first wife, from Savoy, may be spared death from tuberculosis due to variance in daily routine. This would butterfly Elizabeth Farnese, and even if not, the whole Italian situation is different, so her machinations there are butterflied.
-War of Quadruple Alliance is butterflied.

But, aside from all that, DR is in much better shape. Security wise, they're no worse off (of course they couldn't foresee this at the dawn of WoSS, which is why this POD is bonkers, though technically not ASB). You can't plug and play subsequent OTL into this TTL, but...how does this DR navigate this TTL world? Is this a path for DR remaining relevant? I presume after this, DR and England/Britain are back to being enemies.

 

[Parma]

A bit strange POD and flow of events if I may say

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Without the Dutch armies/navy, I'm thinking France wins WoSS in an early timeframe. Philip gets the lion's share of the Spanish Empire, with Louis getting an Italian state to trade for Lorraine.

so then either French Milan or French Naples traded for Lorraine- IIRC, those were the only two options Lorraine would "accept". Problem with French Milan is that Savoie will want it and be massively pissed off if it gets traded to Lorraine. Then again, Victor Amadeus changes side, in other breaking news, water is wet, the sky is blue and the correct answer to "does this make me look fat" is always "no".

 

[unprincipled peter]

so then either French Milan or French Naples traded for Lorraine- IIRC, those were the only two options Lorraine would "accept". Problem with French Milan is that Savoie will want it and be massively pissed off if it gets traded to Lorraine. Then again, Victor Amadeus changes side, in other breaking news, water is wet, the sky is blue and the correct answer to "does this make me look fat" is always "no".

In this scenario (France wins big), it doesn't really matter what Lorraine or Savoy want. Just as at the end of the WoQuadruple Alliance, Savoy gets minimal say. Lorraine is lucky it gets anything to rule.

 

[unprincipled peter]

A bit strange POD and flow of events if I may say

absolutely.

It's mostly just idly musing how DR might get out of the era in better shape. Hindsight being 20/20, OTL DR actions of Glorious Revolution/9YW, then WoSS, didn't exactly work out so well. Maybe that's the best feasible outcome for DR. To be fair, I can't see trusting Louis XIV working out so well for them, either, especially if France wins big.

 

[Janprimus]

No the Dutch would not crack before 1747. In matter of fact the DR was the largest financier of the 9 Years war and WoSS. Also in delivery of manpower the Dutch delivered the most and not only the contracted German armies but a lot of Dutch men. The Dutch did leave the naval defense more and more to the British, who benefitted greatly of it.
Although the in the WoSS the Dutch real Naval strenght was larger than the organic strenght of the British. That is the number of war ships which were of real use and not only ready on paper.
The Dutch had at that time the diplomatic skill to ally with German principalities, scaninaviona Kingdoms and the Holy Roman Empire or the Spanish who were swonr rivals of Louis XIV.

The Dutch Republic cracked after the decades of the WoSS due to the disaster Treaty of Utrecht were the DR did not get any gains which hcould repay the war investments.

This, the Dutch Republic got screwed over by the treaty of Utrecht, which ended in fine terms for Great Britain, so our British allies tend to overlook this.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

This, the Dutch Republic got screwed over by the treaty of Utrecht, which ended in fine terms for Great Britain, so our British allies tend to overlook this.

Seen by the French negotiator Melchior de Polignac:"Nous traiterons sur vous, chez vous, sans vous" We negotiate about you, at you(r place), without you.

 

[Janprimus]

Seen by the French negotiator Melchior de Polignac:"Nous traiterons sur vous, chez vous, sans vous" We negotiate about you, at you(r place), without you.

Too bad Willem III/William III was death by this point, and replaced by the Hanoverians....

 

[Parma]

The DR had to take their moment in 1708, when there was a very favourable agrement with Townsend and tge French offered very favourable peace terms for the DR at Geertruidenberg. Unfortunate the DR found it not prudent to make a one sided term. This did the English a few years later.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

A general impression of mine about the Great Power status of the DR based on it's wealth, is that it came in existence earlier, because both France and England had domestic troubles, and this slowed the economic development of both. France had it's religious conflicts and England had troubles with the balance between King and Parliament. Those two countries became more and more competitive at moments when they solved or partially solved those problems.

 

[Archduke]

On the question of William III and England, I think it goes without saying that personal reasons played a huge role in William III's decision to invade. Just looking at the saga of the Principality of Orange, William III took his personal titles very seriously and believed that he needed to maintain a personal and regal title outside of the elected position of Stadtholder. William III also displayed displeasure at being ranked lower in precedence then many other European rulers and even their children since he was just the Prince of Orange. So getting the royal title of King of England was something that William III sincerely wanted. He probably always planned on forcing Mary to be the junior ruler to him, even before he began to plot James II's overthrow. But yes, William wanted to be the King of England so that he could have one of the highest titles in Europe and have a title that was not constantly under assault from France (the French repeatedly occupied Orange and put into question whether William was actually the Prince of Orange).

However, beyond that personal goal, William did also invade England because he wanted England's resources against France. Before discussing that, let's make two things clear: William's invasion wasn't about stopping James II from becoming an ally of France and wasn't triggered by the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart. On the first item, there was no evidence that James II was going to join the France sphere. In fact there was significant evidence to the contrary. James II throughout his reign avoided serious entanglements with France. Louis XIV even cancelled the French subsidy to England because James II called a parliament, which Louis XIV explicitly did not want. There were also rumors that France was involved in Monmouth's Rebellion. Those rumors were without evidence, but they are a sign of the mutual suspicion between James II and Louis XIV's government. James II and Louis XIV only moved toward cooperation because of William III's threatening behavior toward James II. William III triggered James II's alignment with France by planning an invasion of England. Moving on to the birth, the birth happened well after preparations for the invasion of England had begun. Even the announcement of Mary of Modena's pregnancy occurred after William III started preparing. The pregnancy did not trigger the invasion. It may have helped accelerate preparations somewhat because of the uncertainty over whether James II might finally have an heir. But recall, this was not Mary's first pregnancy, she had had 10 pregnancies before and none of those children had lived long. Also, of her life births, 4 were daughters and 1 was a son. There was no guarantee that her next birth was going to be a son, especially a healthy one. So William was not operating under the thought that Mary and James II were definitely going to have an heir and he had to invade quickly. Also, it logically doesn't make sense that William has to invade immediately just because there's an heir. The simple existence of an heir will discredit William no matter how old he is. William invading when the year is 0 years, 1 years, 2 years old, it makes no difference. In fact, William actually has a better chance after the birth because then maybe the kid dies. That's always a risk. The birth was also not a big part of William's Declaration of Reasons for his invasion. The Declaration focuses on James II himself and his attacks on Protestantism.

What was the core motive for William III was his desire to fully engage England in the war against France. As I said, there was no evidence that James II would align with France. However, there was significant evidence that James II would remain aloft from the war as he focused on sorting out his domestic affairs and pushing through his tolerance agenda. In this case, the England navy stays in port and the English army remains unmobilized. This was not something that William III thought he could afford. Without the English navy, the Dutch could certainly defend their own waters as they proved during the Franco-Dutch War, but the Dutch could not project their naval power beyond those waters as the Mediterranean proved. The Dutch needed the numbers of the English navy to outnumber the French and give themselves offensive capabilities. The Dutch also wanted the English army. In the previous war, the English army was barely involved and the Dutch only really managed some draw. However, a fully mobilized English army the Dutch could accomplish much more and William III knew it. It's important to realize that the War of the Grand Alliance was not about stopping Louis XIV. Stopping Louis XIV was a consequence of the Dutch war goals, but the actual war goal was rolling Louis XIV back. Look at the Dutch and Austrian alliance, it was rather explicit in stripping France of all of Louis XIV's conquests. Clearly, the Dutch and Austrians on their own were not capable of that as the Franco-Dutch War proved. That's why William III felt like he needed the full and total support of England.

It's in that frame that William III's invasion should be understood.
- On a personal level, William III did want to be a king and wanted to be king of England. Mary of Modena's pregnancy could potentially complicate that, but it did not force William to immediately invade England
- England was not on the verge of allying with France, but England was also definitely not joining the Grand Alliance. England was very likely going to be an armed neutral like Sweden and Denmark
- William III wanted to push France back to its 1648/1659 borders so he needed England's full support and the only way to get that was to take control of England himself

In this framework, William III's invasion makes much more sense than in the framework that he was afraid that a Catholic heir would rule England or that James II would attack him. In this framework, William III's discussions with the Great Elector of Brandenburg in 1685 upon James II's succession to invade England is understandable. Because at that point, James II had done nothing to show himself as an enemy of the Dutch Republic. However, Charles II had spent the latter years of his reign being aloft and neutral. So if William III wanted to guarantee that England was a full ally then he ended to take control of England. Also, in 1685, there was no Catholic heir threat but France was aggressing against Spain with the War of Reunions. It also explains why William III's preparations for the invasion of England started in 1687 and why the beginning he communicated to the English dissidents that he wanted to establish "good government" in England. These preparations started before the Catholic heir but after Louis XIV issued an ultimatum against the Empire that demanded that the Reunions gains were made permanent. Then William began to accelerate his planning through 1688. Although there was a potential Catholic heir in the mix, there was also a crisis in Cologne where France was trying to get one of its agents elected as the ruler of an important Rhenish estate. A Rhenish estate that basically had a road straight into Njimegen. A Rhenish estate from which some of the 1672 invasions of the Dutch Republic were launched. This was a much more immediate threat than a Catholic heir. Then William III invaded England when, in November 1688, several months after the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart but just a little over a month after the French invasion of the Rhineland.

Also, some free fun facts that help illustrate that there was a conspiracy designed to remove James II from power so that England could be brought to war against France.
- Pope Innocent XI was informed of William III's intent to invade England and helped fund it.
- Emperor Leopold approved of William III's intent to invade England despite being a fellow Catholic because William III promised to bring England into the war (William III also hinted that if there was a Catholic heir, then he wouldn't be removed from the line of succession. Leopold was not happy when William III removed James Francis Edward Stuart from the succession)
- The Great Elector of Brandenburg was made aware of William III's invasion plans and that's why the Brandenburgers were ready to defeat the Dutch Republic's flank when William III went to England
- Spain was made aware of William III's plans against England because its ambassador to Vienna, Borgamainero, was part of the talks with Leopold and Spain approved because again William promised to bring the English into the war. Previous Spanish efforts to involve England in anti-French wars had failed.
- Hessen-Cassel acted as the intermediary between William III and Emperor Leopold, and they were also in on the plot.

So here's an unlikely WI...

After spending all the resources in the Glorious Revolution/9YW, WI the DR decides to sit out the WoSS. Let's conveniently ignore that France has just taken most/all of the Spanish Netherlands with the inside help of Maxmillian Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria and governor of SN. I think the deal with Max was that he got SN in return for his assistance. Louis XIV would later attempt to negotiate SN to Max as compensation for losing Bavaria, but was in no position to achieve it. Here, let's say French diplomacy is a bit more adroit than OTL, and makes it clear that France will not push further, and SN, while in the French orbit, is not given over to a Bourbon. It probably isn't realistic to expect DR to trust Louis XIV, or to believe this is a reasonable buffer state, but that's the POD.

Just one thing I want to clarify, Max and France had no political arrangement when Max gave up the Spanish Netherlands. At the time, Max was the Governor of the Spanish Netherlands in the name of the government of Carlos II. When Carlos II died, the Spanish recognized Anjou as his heir, as per his will. At that time, William of Orange was not immediately mobilizing for war and the Austrians were only preparing limited offensives into Italy. The war had not yet started and there was no Grand Alliance against France. Max's abandonment of the Spanish Netherlands should not be considered as a direct act of collusion with the French. On one hand, he was just following the orders of the new government, a government which was recognized by the Spanish governor in Milan and Spanish viceroy in Naples as well. But more realistically, Max Emanuel knew that he couldn't stand up against the French on his own, if they tried to enter forcibly. The Dutch weren't ready for a war at that moment and the defenses of the Spanish Netherlands were not adequate. The military and political situation did not favor Max telling the French they could not enter the Spanish Netherlands. So Max gave up the Spanish Netherlands and he went home. When the war actually was starting, Max negotiated with both the French and the allies, but more so with the allies. For all intents and purposes, Max seemed to want to join the allies instead of the French. Leopold however refused to budge and give Max anything, even though William III insisted that Leopold make concessions. Ultimately Max chose France because he could not win anything from the allies.

Also, as a note, William III offered Max Emanuel the Spanish Netherlands in a hereditary manner. The French were mainly supporting him in building a German kingdom.

 

[Parma]

Spot on analyse. Beside personal interest it were the Englishvwho were used by the Dutch....unfortunate this backfired masivly in the years 1708-1712.

 

[TrickyApe]

The Dutch Republic cracked after the decades of the WoSS due to the disaster Treaty of Utrecht were the DR did not get any gains which hcould repay the war investments.

What was the DR expecting to get and how would that have eased the financial burden? Would more barrier forts, even in prosperous cities, have made a difference?