LoBPC: Reign of William IV (1704-60)

(BAA, "LoBPC" stands for "Lack of Butterflies Plausibility Check" :p)

Anyway, idea here is William and Mary have a son, born 1692, named after his father. His reign sees unification of Britain and the Netherlands in 1707, but other than that, politically at least, British FP and such remain more or less the same as OTL until his successor. This includes getting into what OTL calls the Seven Years War, and winning.
 
(BAA, "LoBPC" stands for "Lack of Butterflies Plausibility Check" :p)

Anyway, idea here is William and Mary have a son, born 1692, named after his father. His reign sees unification of Britain and the Netherlands in 1707, but other than that, politically at least, British FP and such remain more or less the same as OTL until his successor. This includes getting into what OTL calls the Seven Years War, and winning.

Maybe this will ensure that The Netherlands will get a better deal than OTL in the various peace treaties of the era.
IOTL, form the Dutch perspective, it almost seemed as if the Dutch Republic had fought side by side with the British for Britain, since the Dutch Republic did not end up with much (in the various treaties).
 
The two would continue in Personal Union, but I doubt the Dutch would become part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (if the Act of Union still occurs). Merging Scotland and England into a singular parliament works, but to add the Dutch into the mix? Sounds nasty. The Dutch probably wouldn't like having an absentee monarch, either, it could easily lead to another Stadholderless period, although there would be a Stadholder: he would just be the King of Britain and residing in London. Leaving domestic matters in the Netherlands to the States General.
 
Doubtful, why move to Amsterdam when London has a larger population, is better situated for commercial matters, ect. In any Union between Britain and the Dutch, the Dutch will always be the lesser partners, simply because the British part will be more important. The problems of merging them into a singular government just seems impossible, if anything, the Netherlands will play the role of Hannover in this ATL, the British loathe to have it drag them into continental matters, moaning when British money goes into Dutch coffers for various reasons (memory is fuzzy but I believe funds from Ireland often went into Hannover during the 18th century for a variety of reasons).
 
The problems of merging them into a singular government just seems impossible...

Well, maybe 1707 is just too soon -- after all, England and Scotland had seen personal union for over a century prior before the Act of Union was passed. And I am planning, TTL, for a line of kings at least that long. Is it really outside the realm of possibility a century from the PoD?
 
The problem with personal unions between the Netherlands and well any country during the 17th and 18 century is that they aren't true personal unions.

First of all a stadholder is no king. Sure he could be the most influential person in the Netherlands, but he had to share his power with the merchant class, who basicly ruled the Netherlands. That merchant class had enough power to decide to get rid of a stadholder, something that happened before Willem/William III (because he his father died when Willem wasn't born yet and they decided they didn't need one) and when Willem III past away and the succession wasn't clear. So if the Dutch decide that being ruled by a British king they get rid of him or appoint someone else as stadholder, like the Frisian stadholder.

That brings me to the second point: the Frisian stadholder. There were actually two stadholders in the Netherlands. Willem III was only stadholder of a couple (including the most important) the most important provinces: Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel. Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe had another stadholder, distantly related to Willem. Various other parts, like Dutch Flanders, Brabant, Limburg and part of Gelre didn't even have a stadholder. So any personal union means only a personal union with part of the Netherlands.
 
The problem with personal unions between the Netherlands and well any country during the 17th and 18 century is that they aren't true personal unions.

First of all a stadholder is no king. Sure he could be the most influential person in the Netherlands, but he had to share his power with the merchant class, who basicly ruled the Netherlands. That merchant class had enough power to decide to get rid of a stadholder, something that happened before Willem/William III (because he his father died when Willem wasn't born yet and they decided they didn't need one) and when Willem III past away and the succession wasn't clear. So if the Dutch decide that being ruled by a British king they get rid of him or appoint someone else as stadholder, like the Frisian stadholder.

That brings me to the second point: the Frisian stadholder. There were actually two stadholders in the Netherlands. Willem III was only stadholder of a couple (including the most important) the most important provinces: Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel. Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe had another stadholder, distantly related to Willem. Various other parts, like Dutch Flanders, Brabant, Limburg and part of Gelre didn't even have a stadholder. So any personal union means only a personal union with part of the Netherlands.

Well there were some plans to make stadtholder William III duke of Gelre (/Guelders/Gelderland) IIRC at least one in 1675. However such a thing was highly controversial, so he eventually decided against it, even though this hurt his own ambitions to become sovereign of the United Provinces.
So maybe but still unlikely, the United Provinces accept the king of England and Scotland as their sovereign it could work. Certain groups such as the merchant class won't like it and the popularity of the house of Orange could drop once they become more British and less Dutch, but this doesn't have to mean the end of such an union.

A problem for good relations between England & Scotland and the United Provinces are going to be trade disputes, as most of the earlier more violent conflicts; the United Provinces and England used to be rivals with respect to trade, so they could have some different interests. With the exception of this long standing trade rivalry, the United Provinces and England didn't have much problems. (Compared to France and Spain England was considered a ''friend'' of the Republic;).)

The biggest problem for good relations between the England & Scotland and the United Provinces is going to be the fact, that as a nation on the European continent the United Provinces are a lot more vulnerable. Other than that I doubt that there would have to flow British money in Dutch coffers.
 
Last edited:
(BAA, "LoBPC" stands for "Lack of Butterflies Plausibility Check" :p)

Anyway, idea here is William and Mary have a son, born 1692, named after his father. His reign sees unification of Britain and the Netherlands in 1707, but other than that, politically at least, British FP and such remain more or less the same as OTL until his successor. This includes getting into what OTL calls the Seven Years War, and winning.

The relationship with France is going to be very different though. James II may still live there with his family, heirs etc but France is going to have much less invested in the idea of a Jacobite restoration because the opportunities of OTL do not exist.

Louis XIV, though, is still going to be Louis XIV, but he may be more focused on Spain, whilst England will have less requirement for Marlborough to be stalking the continent arm in arm with Eugene of Savoy

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The relationship with France is going to be very different though. James II may still live there with his family, heirs etc but France is going to have much less invested in the idea of a Jacobite restoration because the opportunities of OTL do not exist.

Are you saying the British front in the Nine Years War would be shorter? AIUI, there's so much going on in this war, which England was only a part, that William IV's birth doesn't necessarily mean the war would end before 1697.
 
Bringing back the thread to add another thought -- could a personal union between Britain and the Netherlands lead to an arrangement, a union, or a merger between the British and Dutch East India Companies?
 
Why do you keep making up acronyms and misusing traditional ones? Acronyms don't work if everybody isn't using them. Do you have carpal tunnel syndrome?
 
In the improbable instance of a Dutch/English/Scots union, you're probably not going to be able to have a huge parliament in London that rules everybody. You'd probably have to have some federal structure (king's privy council evolves into an Imperial Parliament?)

That seems possible, IMO, but pretty low possibility.
 
Well that may be a thought, though improbable as it is I don't think containing butterflies on top of it is plausible. Worth thinking over...

In the meantime, let me ask about post 1760 -- assuming the butterflies are contained, what would be the effect of having someone completely different from George III as king around this time? My thinking is it would likely stop the ARW from even boiling up...
 
Top