PC: Belgium was founded as a republic in 1830

Reading about Belgian revolution of 1830... I wondered what if Belgium instead of inviting Leopold I, chose to go republican in the mold of Switzerland or USA. Would it be feasible back then? What would the repercussions back then?
 
The French probably would've supported them.
France was a monarchy in those days. I doubt they would have supported a Belgian Republic. Actualy I think noone would have supported a Belgian Republic with the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars so recently over. I think they would force a king upon Belgium, assuming they would support them at all. It could be that he Belgians would be seen as dangerous republicans that would be better of being ruled by the king of the Netherlands.
 
I don't think that republican Belgians would had gotten any support. Europe was almost exclusively monarchis continent where only Switzerland and San Marino were republics. And European great powers had still fresh memories about French republicanism. Even if Belgians decalre theri country as republic, foreign nations quickly would enforce that to become monarchy.
 
Perhaps they try something with the offices of Stadtholder? Depends how centralized they plan to be. Their best bets might be to hope they can get the deal the Norwegians ended up with, in that the King gets legitimacy by having both the populace vote on if they want a monarchy, and then having the parliament elect him king, followed by having a less-than-opulent lifestyle and not try to interfere with whatever the parliament decides on. Might be harder in an area like this with their language issues, but not having a king, or getting a different one, might mean the Walloons don’t get their language made endangered by Parisian French being pushed on them, or for the Fleming’s to have themselves locked out of office if they don’t speak French,
 
Perhaps they try something with the offices of Stadtholder? Depends how centralized they plan to be. Their best bets might be to hope they can get the deal the Norwegians ended up with, in that the King gets legitimacy by having both the populace vote on if they want a monarchy, and then having the parliament elect him king, followed by having a less-than-opulent lifestyle and not try to interfere with whatever the parliament decides on. Might be harder in an area like this with their language issues, but not having a king, or getting a different one, might mean the Walloons don’t get their language made endangered by Parisian French being pushed on them, or for the Fleming’s to have themselves locked out of office if they don’t speak French,

I don't know about Dutch but I doubt that Belgians would ever agree about personal union solution. Probably such thing should occur earlier or revolution being more paceful.
 
I do believe that having a monarch was one of the conditions that Britain gave the Belgians in exchange for supporting their independence. Going the Republican route would probably upset their neighbours and cause a premature end to the Belgian state.
 
Perhaps they try something with the offices of Stadtholder? Depends how centralized they plan to be. Their best bets might be to hope they can get the deal the Norwegians ended up with, in that the King gets legitimacy by having both the populace vote on if they want a monarchy, and then having the parliament elect him king, followed by having a less-than-opulent lifestyle and not try to interfere with whatever the parliament decides on. Might be harder in an area like this with their language issues, but not having a king, or getting a different one, might mean the Walloons don’t get their language made endangered by Parisian French being pushed on them, or for the Fleming’s to have themselves locked out of office if they don’t speak French,
Placing a German king on the Belgian throne had no influence whatsoever on Belgian language politics. And 9/10 of Belgians with the right to vote (wealth based, ~1% at independence, still only ~2% 60 years later) did not care one bit about either Flemish or Walloon in the 19th Century.
 
I don't know about Dutch but I doubt that Belgians would ever agree about personal union solution. Probably such thing should occur earlier or revolution being more paceful.
I meant the separation of the personal union. The Norwegian King got a lot of points in public opinion by making sure there was a clear choice and then not interfering. They managed to fight there way to a personal union instead of de facto annexation after the Napoleonic Wars, and I don’t see the Belgians wanting the Dutch King either. Maybe a cousin or someone, but that could get complicated on the issue of loyalty and whether that person was looking out for himself, his dynasty, the people of the south, etc. But yah, I brought up the Norwegian situation because the King didn’t even try to stop a party wishing to abolish the monarchy from getting into power. They dropped that from their party manifesto afterwards,. But yes, back then Europe didn’t really have that thing with ceremonial and political leadership being separate, so I am wondering how they decide who a leader is in a Republican Belgium.
 
Placing a German king on the Belgian throne had no influence whatsoever on Belgian language politics. And 9/10 of Belgians with the right to vote (wealth based, ~1% at independence, still only ~2% 60 years later) did not care one bit about either Flemish or Walloon in the 19th Century.
He thought French was a more prestigious language. Might be someone else will be more in favor of Flemish.
 
Top