Keep the Dutch Stadtholderate?

Would there be any way to keep the position of Stadtholder in the Netherlands past the Napoleonic Wars without it essentially just being King in all but name? I'm American and most of what I've read has been online sources that may or may not be reliable, so forgive me if I am mistaken, but from what I understand, by the time the Patriots deposed William V, the position of Stadtholder had essentially evolved into a de-facto dictatorship/monarchy.

Basically, was there any reason or any advantage to keep the position of Stadtholder and the Dutch Republic over just crowning a King?
 
Oner factor might be that post 1789/1815, the name of a "Republic" is especially discredited. Before 1789, it was a local quirk, but after 1815, it is ratherr offensive to the crowned concert of Europe, especially if there is a perfect dynast to take over.

The only way to keep the terms Republic and Stadholder might have been if the obvious heir to the post, the Prince of Orange-Nassau, had expressed the explicit desire for keeping them. Probably for reasons of historical romanticism.

But even that would probably not save the less centralized system of government.
 
I'm interested but not quite familiar with Dutch history. A 1848 Revolution could reestablish the Republic? As far as i know, in 1848 the Netherlands established a Constitution, what if it went wrong?
 
I'm interested but not quite familiar with Dutch history. A 1848 Revolution could reestablish the Republic? As far as i know, in 1848 the Netherlands established a Constitution, what if it went wrong?

The kingdom of the United Netherlands had a constitution; the same one as the constitution of the sovereign principality of the United Netherlands, which had been adopted in 1814. However that constitution gave a lot of power to the monarch.
The house of Orange-Nassau wanted to become equal to their foreign royal relatives, since the days of the Republic. Furthermore king Louis Napoleon of Holland had done a satisfactory job and had been quite popular; something which wasn't forgotten after the French annexation.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Oner factor might be that post 1789/1815, the name of a "Republic" is especially discredited. Before 1789, it was a local quirk, but after 1815, it is ratherr offensive to the crowned concert of Europe, especially if there is a perfect dynast to take over.

The only way to keep the terms Republic and Stadholder might have been if the obvious heir to the post, the Prince of Orange-Nassau, had expressed the explicit desire for keeping them. Probably for reasons of historical romanticism.

But even that would probably not save the less centralized system of government.

The term 'Republic' was also pretty discredited internally. First there was the old pre-1794 Republic that was archaic, corrupt and undemocratic. Then the patriots got their chance during the Batavian Republic and it turned out totally chaotic (Seriously, for someone else's TL I tried to work out which factions there were, all trying to influence the new Consitution: Federalists, Confederalists, Unitarians, Centralizers, Decentralizers, etc etc.). After that the idea of a monarchy was advanced by the good work of Louis Napoleon as Janprimus has already mentioned.
 
If William V had been more willing to compromise with the Patriots, would the Stadtholderate/the old Republic have been able to survive? Or was it essentially canned as soon as the Batavian Republic was established?
 
Would there be any way to keep the position of Stadtholder in the Netherlands past the Napoleonic Wars without it essentially just being King in all but name? I'm American and most of what I've read has been online sources that may or may not be reliable, so forgive me if I am mistaken, but from what I understand, by the time the Patriots deposed William V, the position of Stadtholder had essentially evolved into a de-facto dictatorship/monarchy.

Basically, was there any reason or any advantage to keep the position of Stadtholder and the Dutch Republic over just crowning a King?

The position of Stadtholder became obsolete in the 18th century - it was clear that the feudal and medieval structure of the United Provinces (even if they were a republic) weren't very efficient in "modern" times with the Netherlands surrounded by absolutist states with a more or less centralized administration.

So you might realize that the position of Stadtholder was attacked both by monarchists (who wanted a real king instead of the elective Stadtholderate) and by republicans (who wanted a real, centralized and modern republic). The republicans finally won with the support of French troops, Napoleon established some form of monarchy and eventually fully annexed the Netherlands.

You see, in 1815, there were almost no supporters of the United Provinces system anymore.

If William V had been more willing to compromise with the Patriots, would the Stadtholderate/the old Republic have been able to survive? Or was it essentially canned as soon as the Batavian Republic was established?

Very good question. But I have two objections:

1) If the compromise happens before the revolution, the problem is what happens to the ruling class? Do they instantly abondon all their power (see Louis XVI - he and his ministers also wanted reforms, but the nobility and the clergy obstructed them).

2) I doubt that after the revolution, the republicans will agree to a comprise.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I've got an idea. What if the Patriotic Revolution of 1786 succeeds? The POD can be the Prussian Princes never leaves for the Hague (and thus isn't captured triggering Prussian intervention) or Willem V marries someone else. This can force a compromise in which the Stadholder keeps some of His power while the Regents are swept away by the Patriots. Will be interesting to see how Revolutionary France deals with this New Republic.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I've got an idea. What if the Patriotic Revolution of 1786 succeeds? The POD can be the Prussian Princes never leaves for the Hague (and thus isn't captured triggering Prussian intervention) or Willem V marries someone else. This can force a compromise in which the Stadholder keeps some of His power while the Regents are swept away by the Patriots. Will be interesting to see how Revolutionary France deals with this New Republic.

To expand on my post. This will probably have a effect on the French Revolution itself. For one thing there will not be any Dutch Patriottic community in France during the Revolution and if the Patriots make a deal with the Stadholder that could serve as inspiration to the moderates in France as well.
 
and many of the dutch patroits that fled to france were usually middleclass and wealthy. i agree with hj tulp that them staying in nl well might prevent the french revolution.

and talking about stadholderate, the united province were a parlementarian republic from the start in 1588, the stadholder system is only describing the figurehead, because that is what a stadholder was, a ceremonial president (much later hereditary), that had to be appointed by parliament.
the only time when a stadholder had real power was during times of war, and he got power because he was supposed to pay many of the soldiers that were used from his own purse.

lampio mentioned the revolution of 1848, what that did is reducing the power of the king back to united provinces level/ as little power as a stadholder had.
the reason for changing to a king were twofold, 1. the good work of louis napoleon (we should have reappointed him instead of the 3 willemine monsters btw) 2. the desire of willem I for power he was frustrated with being a powerless stadholder and wanted as much power as his autocratic royal neighbours. of course only willem 1 was slightly competent, #2 and 3 were incompetent buffoons, and #3 also a sociopath (hence his nickname king gorilla).

if the revolution of 1786 succeeds, then we will get no major changes, only a new stadholderless era
Very good question. But I have two objections:

1) If the compromise happens before the revolution, the problem is what happens to the ruling class? Do they instantly abondon all their power (see Louis XVI - he and his ministers also wanted reforms, but the nobility and the clergy obstructed them).

2) I doubt that after the revolution, the republicans will agree to a comprise.

first although there was some nobility in the UP, it wasn't that prominent or powerful, the real power in the UP always were and are the merchant middle class,the patricians, there is no real ruling class. orangists and republicans often came from the same layers of society. also the republicans (patriotten) are not a new faction, they have existed almost since the start of the UP, and they had been in power before, the republicans were not some revolutionary group, they were a well established political faction.
so them taking over would be a change of power like they happen in democratic country all the time after elections.
 
Last edited:
and talking about stadholderate, the united province were a parlementarian republic from the start in 1588, the stadholder system is only describing the figurehead, because that is what a stadholder was, a ceremonial president (much later hereditary), that had to be appointed by parliament.
the only time when a stadholder had real power was during times of war, and he got power because he was supposed to pay many of the soldiers that were used from his own purse.

I wouldn't say the stadholder was just a figurehead. Certainly a stadholder wasn't ad powerful as a king, but I wouldn't call him powerless. I always say that a stadholder didn't have any power, but did have a lot of influence. The office of stadholder for example was part of the states of Zeeland. So he had some influence there. A stadholder had quite a lot of duties and when played well, he could become the most powerful man in the Dutch republic. Competent stadholders like Willem II and III did manage to become the most powerful men of the Dutch republic (something the regents did not like, which is why a stadholderless period followed their "reign"), incompetent stadholders, like Willem V became irrelevant.

first although there was some nobility in the UP, it wasn't that prominent or powerful, the real power in the UP always were and are the merchant middle class,the patricians, there is no real ruling class.

Actualy the Dutch nobility was relatively powerful. In the provincial states the nobility was often one of the major factors. Ususaly in the provincial states the major cities had a vote and the nobility represented the smaller cities and the countryside. Many of the most important figures of the Dutch Republic were part of the nobility (although in some cases raised to nobility). I will admit that compared to (basicly) the rest of Europe the nobility had a lot less power and most of the nobility was lower nobility (the only member of the higher nobility left was the prince of Orange), but the Dutch nobility still was one of the major powers in the Dutch Republic. The Dutch nobility simply had to share its power with the regent class of the cities and to be fair in Holland that regent class (and especialy the Amsterdam regents) were the most important power faction and Holland was by far the most important power in the Dutch republic. Although, as I said the nobility of Holland was part of the states of Holland, so they still had quite some influence in Holland and thus the Dutch republic.
 
Top