PC - Two Belgiums

[LeinadB93]

So I've been reading around the Belgian Revolution and its aftermath, and I was intrigued by the idea of Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours being considered as a viable candidate for the Belgian throne.

Now this got me thinking, what if the French-speaking Walloons coalesced around support for Prince Louis, whilst the Dutch-speaking Flemish shifted to favour Prince Leopold (OTL King Leopold I)?

Is it plausible that what we know today as Belgium splits in 1831 into two states?

1) The Kingdom of Belgium in the northwest under King Leopold I. (OTL Flanders plus Walloon Brabant and parts of western Hainaut)
2) The Kingdom of Wallonia in the southeast under King Louis I. (OTL Wallonia minus Belgian gains and Eupen-Malmedy)​

Now I know this assumes no objection from the Great Powers. Perhaps, Prince Louis renounces all claims to the French throne and line of succession.

Thoughts?

 

[HJ Tulp]

So I've been reading around the Belgian Revolution and its aftermath, and I was intrigued by the idea of Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours being considered as a viable candidate for the Belgian throne.

Now this got me thinking, what if the French-speaking Walloons coalesced around support for Prince Louis, whilst the Dutch-speaking Flemish shifted to favour Prince Leopold (OTL King Leopold I)?

Is it plausible that what we know today as Belgium splits in 1831 into two states?

1) The Kingdom of Belgium in the northwest under King Leopold I. (OTL Flanders plus Walloon Brabant and parts of western Hainaut)
2) The Kingdom of Wallonia in the southeast under King Louis I. (OTL Wallonia minus Belgian gains and Eupen-Malmedy)​

Now I know this assumes no objection from the Great Powers. Perhaps, Prince Louis renounces all claims to the French throne and line of succession.

Thoughts?

There was not yet such a pronounced divide between Flanders and Wallonia because the Flemish elite was pretty francophone as well.

 

[LeinadB93]

There was not yet such a pronounced divide between Flanders and Wallonia because the Flemish elite was pretty francophone as well.

Fair point. It seems the bourgeoisie and elite were generally Francophone across the country, but they were pretty vehemently opposed to the Dutch-speaking west. The only official language was French, and Dutch-language education was abolished and use of the language was generally restricted. The French-speaking elite also focused industrialisation in Wallonia, generally ignoring and under-developing the Dutch-speaking west. Leading to a great deal of poverty.

Also, it would appear that the Flemish provinces were generally opposed to secessionist, and refused to take orders from the new Belgian government. Until they were subjugated by a French force, and a fair few Dutch-speaking nobles and industrialists were Orangists. Plus there were some attempted Orangist coups.

- - - -

Now, my thoughts are that, for whatever reason, Prince Louis isn’t vetoed by the Great Powers and King Louis-Philippe of France accepts the throne for his son, in about February 1832. Now the Flemish provinces are up in arms over a French king on the throne and erupt into a revolt against the Francophone dominated government. A Dutch invasion is blocked by a French force backing the new government, and the British threaten to intervene to keep the peace established at the 1830 London Conference.

Britain drags the powers back to the table, and hammers out a compromise at the 1831 London Conference - Wallonia (incl. Limburg but excluding Walloon Brabant and parts of western Hainaut) is granted to Prince Louis as king; whilst Belgium (Flanders with some adjustments) is created as a monarchy under Prince Leopold as king.

 

[funnyhat]

Fair point. It seems the bourgeoisie and elite were generally Francophone across the country, but they were pretty vehemently opposed to the Dutch-speaking west. The only official language was French, and Dutch-language education was abolished and use of the language was generally restricted. The French-speaking elite also focused industrialisation in Wallonia, generally ignoring and under-developing the Dutch-speaking east. Leading to a great deal of poverty.

I don't think this was an orchestrated plan ; most of Belgium's coal reserves are simply located in Wallonia.

(BTW the Dutch speakers are in the west.)

 

[LeinadB93]

I don't think this was an orchestrated plan ; most of Belgium's coal reserves are simply located in Wallonia.

True. But it doesn seem to have been a deliberate policy by the French-speaking elite to favour the French-speaking regions and generally disregard the Flemish areas. When 80% of investment went to Wallonia compared to Flanders, the latter of which was a prosperous region before independence and then suffered crippling poverty and economic depression... Combined with the language policy seems to represent a clear plan to promote the development of French-speaking Belgium over the Flemish-/Dutch-speaking parts of the country.

(BTW the Dutch speakers are in the west.)

Whoops, thanks for catching that.

 

[LeinadB93]

I suppose my question still stands, about whether the conditions could ever have been right to allow the division of Belgium in the 1830s into a Dutch-/Flemish-speaking state and a French-speaking one. Both independent but neutral.

 

[Wendell]

Personal union between Wallonia and Brazil in a generation or two?

 

[LeinadB93]

Personal union between Wallonia and Brazil in a generation or two?

I’d assume that either there are different royal marriages, or Prince Gaston gives up his succession rights when he marries Princess Isabel. The Walloon throne would probably pass to Prince Ferdinand, Duke of Alencon and his heirs.

 

[DracoLazarus]

Fair point. It seems the bourgeoisie and elite were generally Francophone across the country, but they were pretty vehemently opposed to the Dutch-speaking west. The only official language was French, and Dutch-language education was abolished and use of the language was generally restricted. The French-speaking elite also focused industrialisation in Wallonia, generally ignoring and under-developing the Dutch-speaking west. Leading to a great deal of poverty.

Also, it would appear that the Flemish provinces were generally opposed to secessionist, and refused to take orders from the new Belgian government. Until they were subjugated by a French force, and a fair few Dutch-speaking nobles and industrialists were Orangists. Plus there were some attempted Orangist coups.

- - - -

Now, my thoughts are that, for whatever reason, Prince Louis isn’t vetoed by the Great Powers and King Louis-Philippe of France accepts the throne for his son, in about February 1832. Now the Flemish provinces are up in arms over a French king on the throne and erupt into a revolt against the Francophone dominated government. A Dutch invasion is blocked by a French force backing the new government, and the British threaten to intervene to keep the peace established at the 1830 London Conference.

Britain drags the powers back to the table, and hammers out a compromise at the 1831 London Conference - Wallonia (incl. Limburg but excluding Walloon Brabant and parts of western Hainaut) is granted to Prince Louis as king; whilst Belgium (Flanders with some adjustments and the arondissement of Dunkirk) is created as a monarchy under Prince Leopold as king.

The bit with giving part of the existing French territory to Flanders would sound pretty bad, and Dunkerque and the adjacent villages were Ch'ti, not French Flemish, so I believe ceding the Arrondissement de Dunkerque is out of the question in 1831.

 

[LeinadB93]

The bit with giving part of the existing French territory to Flanders would sound pretty bad, and Dunkerque and the adjacent villages were Ch'ti, not French Flemish, so I believe ceding the Arrondissement de Dunkerque is out of the question in 1831.

Okay so no cession of French Flanders or the Arondissement de Dunkerque to the new state.

Otherwise everything sounds plausible?

 

[Wendell]

I’d assume that either there are different royal marriages, or Prince Gaston gives up his succession rights when he marries Princess Isabel. The Walloon throne would probably pass to Prince Ferdinand, Duke of Alencon and his heirs.

Or she gives up her claim to Brazil/butterflies let her brother live.

 

[funnyhat]

True. But it doesn seem to have been a deliberate policy by the French-speaking elite to favour the French-speaking regions and generally disregard the Flemish areas. When 80% of investment went to Wallonia compared to Flanders, the latter of which was a prosperous region before independence and then suffered crippling poverty and economic depression... Combined with the language policy seems to represent a clear plan to promote the development of French-speaking Belgium over the Flemish-/Dutch-speaking parts of the country.

French was the dominant aristocratic and diplomatic language of Europe in 1830. I don't think the new élite expected Belgium to have a permanent language divide, but rather, that the population would assimilate into French. Note that the Walloons didn't necessarily speak standard French at this time, either, and their "patois" were also looked down upon.

Heavy industry was a new phenomenon and was capital-intensive. Wherever they built their factories, that region was going to receive a massive share of investment. I'm not an expert on this and could be mistaken, but I think they probably just built the factories close to the sources of coal rather than due to some careful political calculations. In this era, Belgium was not divided into separate linguistic regions, but was a unitary state.

The bit with giving part of the existing French territory to Flanders would sound pretty bad, and Dunkerque and the adjacent villages were Ch'ti, not French Flemish, so I believe ceding the Arrondissement de Dunkerque is out of the question in 1831.

It was Flemish speaking - the language border was closer to Lille. But I don't think it is realistic for France to cede territory in this scenario. If the Belgian king proves to be unfit to rule, he can be removed, but I don't see why the border with France would be changed.

 

[Captain Poplar]

The bit with giving part of the existing French territory to Flanders would sound pretty bad, and Dunkerque and the adjacent villages were Ch'ti, not French Flemish, so I believe ceding the Arrondissement de Dunkerque is out of the question in 1831.

I agree on the fact that France would certainly not have given an inch of its territory, but it seems to me that the countryside around Dunkerque, from Cassel up to Leffinckoucke, was flemish-speaking at the time ?

 

[DracoLazarus]

I agree on the fact that France would certainly not have given an inch of its territory, but it seems to me that the countryside around Dunkerque, from Cassel up to Leffinckoucke, was flemish-speaking at the time ?

Maybe slightly to the Northeast of Dunkerque, but I can very much guarantee that Grand-Fort-Philippe and Dunkerque proper were Ch'ti.

 

[Captain Poplar]

Maybe slightly to the Northeast of Dunkerque, but I can very much guarantee that Grand-Fort-Philippe and Dunkerque proper were Ch'ti.

Not surprised about Dunkerque. For the same reason, Brest has always been a French-speaking enclave in the Breton-speaking Léon.

 

[LeinadB93]

French was the dominant aristocratic and diplomatic language of Europe in 1830. I don't think the new élite expected Belgium to have a permanent language divide, but rather, that the population would assimilate into French. Note that the Walloons didn't necessarily speak standard French at this time, either, and their "patois" were also looked down upon.

I agree that the elite were definitely opposed to a lingusitic divide, and tried to actively impose the French language on Dutch speakers - hence the end of the use of Dutch as a language for higher education.

Heavy industry was a new phenomenon and was capital-intensive. Wherever they built their factories, that region was going to receive a massive share of investment. I'm not an expert on this and could be mistaken, but I think they probably just built the factories close to the sources of coal rather than due to some careful political calculations.

Oh yes that definitely makes sense, but it is still interesting that the majority of investment in the first 88 years of Belgium's existence went to Flanders. There seems to have been a widespread effort in the 1830s to suppress any sort of "Flemish"identity and subjugate the region to the desires of the French-speaking elite and Wallonia.

In this era, Belgium was not divided into separate linguistic regions, but was a unitary state.

True, but there still seems to have been a distinctive divide between the Dutch/Flemish west and the French/Walloon east. Even under a unitary state those divides still existed, and could have been exacerbated to the point of separation during the volatile first decade of Belgium's existence.

 

[DracoLazarus]

I agree that the elite were definitely opposed to a lingusitic divide, and tried to actively impose the French language on Dutch speakers - hence the end of the use of Dutch as a language for higher education.
Oh yes that definitely makes sense, but it is still interesting that the majority of investment in the first 88 years of Belgium's existence went to Flanders. There seems to have been a widespread effort in the 1830s to suppress any sort of "Flemish"identity and subjugate the region to the desires of the French-speaking elite and Wallonia.
True, but there still seems to have been a distinctive divide between the Dutch/Flemish west and the French/Walloon east. Even under a unitary state those divides still existed, and could have been exacerbated to the point of separation during the volatile first decade of Belgium's existence.

I will point out that at that point, Wallonia was barely more Francophone than Flanders.
As in, I'm a native Francophone and I once read Walloon, and it's barely more intelligible to me than Italian, a language I do not speak either.
So yeah, they were trying to bring French not only to the Flemish, but also to the Walloon countryside at the same time, and use French as a joint communication language between the two communities.

 

[LeinadB93]

I will point out that at that point, Wallonia was barely more Francophone than Flanders.
As in, I'm a native Francophone and I once read Walloon, and it's barely more intelligible to me than Italian, a language I do not speak either.
So yeah, they were trying to bring French not only to the Flemish, but also to the Walloon countryside at the same time, and use French as a joint communication language between the two communities.

Interesting. But it does seem the imposition of French as the language of government, education and advancement was more successful in Wallonia compared to Flanders IOTL. I'm not disputing that the French-speaking elite were effectively using the French-language as a way of building a unitary Belgian state, but it does seem to have been more effective in the east compared to the west.

My thoughts are that, with a French-speaking monarch taking the throne, could the Dutch-speaking population (and any Dutch-speaking nobles) openly revolt against the new Belgian government? It seems that Flanders was IOTL actively opposed to the Belgian government, needing a French force to subdue them and bring them to heel as well as counter the attempted Dutch invasion. This ends up in a stalemate, with the powers being dragged back to a conference and the creation of two independent states in OTL Belgium.

 

[LeinadB93]

Okay, so I've tried to collate my thoughts on the alternate outcome of the Belgian Revolution.

Here's a rought mock-up of the modern division of OTL Belgium:

Kingdom of Belgium:

Dutch-speaking majority (with French-speaking minority)
Capital in Laeken and largest city in Brussels
Constitutional monarchy under King Leopold V (House of Laeken - branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha)​

Kingdom of Wallonia:

French-speaking majority (with Walloon-speaking minority)
Capital in Namur and largest city is Charleroi
Constitutional monarchy under King Ferdinand II (House of Orléans-Nemours - branch of the House of Orléans)​

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:

Retains the municipality of Arlon​

Eupen-Malmedy

Either an independent buffer state or part of Prussia/Germany​

During the Belgian Revolution, the candidature of Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours is accepted by King Louis-Philippe I of France, and his son becomes "King-elect of Belgium" in February 1831. The Dutch-speaking west of the country erupts into open revolt against the central Belgian government, refusing to accept a monarch aligned t France, and angered by the actions of the French-speaking elite. The Dutch themselves see an opportunity to reclaim the Southern Netherlands, and launch an invasion into North Brabant in support of the Dutch-speaking rebels, whilst the Belgians are supported by a French force that enters southern Belgium without informing the other great powers. The Dutch and French end up in a stalemate outside Brussels.

Britain convenes another conference in London between the Great Powers in early 1832. Neither France nor the Netherlands is willing to back down, while Prussia opposes a unified Belgium under a French monarchy. Britain is reluctant to intervene militarily on the continent, while Russia is distracted by the Polish Uprising. Austria proposes a compromise that partitions Belgium into two independent states - Belgium in the west, and Wallonia in the east. Luxembourg is partitioned, with much of its territory going to the new Walloon state, whilst the status of Neutral Moresnet and Eupen-Malmedy are confirmed. Belgium is granted to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Wallonia is granted to the uncrowned Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours. Both states have their independence guaranteed by the Great Powers, but have neutrality enforced upon them - despite Belgium's desire for close relations with Britain, and Wallonia's with France.

Thoughts?

My thinking is that Wallonia industrialises as OTL, but Belgium is able to use its sea-access as a natural route for Walloon exports and there the two countries become quite economically dependent on one another. Wallonia gets completely occupied by the Germans in the First World War, along with bits of Belgium. Both countries are occupied during the Second World War, and restored after the war. This also butterflies the Congo Free State I imagine...

 

[DracoLazarus]

Okay, so I've tried to collate my thoughts on the alternate outcome of the Belgian Revolution.

Here's a rought mock-up of the modern division of OTL Belgium:

Kingdom of Belgium:

Dutch-speaking majority (with French-speaking minority)
Capital in Laeken and largest city in Brussels
Constitutional monarchy under King Leopold V (House of Laeken - branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha)​

Kingdom of Wallonia:

French-speaking majority (with Walloon-speaking minority)
Capital in Namur and largest city is Charleroi
Constitutional monarchy under King Ferdinand II (House of Orléans-Nemours - branch of the House of Orléans)​

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:

Retains the municipality of Arlon​

Eupen-Malmedy

Either an independent buffer state or part of Prussia/Germany​

During the Belgian Revolution, the candidature of Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours is accepted by King Louis-Philippe I of France, and his son becomes "King-elect of Belgium" in February 1831. The Dutch-speaking west of the country erupts into open revolt against the central Belgian government, refusing to accept a monarch aligned t France, and angered by the actions of the French-speaking elite. The Dutch themselves see an opportunity to reclaim the Southern Netherlands, and launch an invasion into North Brabant in support of the Dutch-speaking rebels, whilst the Belgians are supported by a French force that enters southern Belgium without informing the other great powers. The Dutch and French end up in a stalemate outside Brussels.

Britain convenes another conference in London between the Great Powers in early 1832. Neither France nor the Netherlands is willing to back down, while Prussia opposes a unified Belgium under a French monarchy. Britain is reluctant to intervene militarily on the continent, while Russia is distracted by the Polish Uprising. Austria proposes a compromise that partitions Belgium into two independent states - Belgium in the west, and Wallonia in the east. Luxembourg is partitioned, with much of its territory going to the new Walloon state, whilst the status of Neutral Moresnet and Eupen-Malmedy are confirmed. Belgium is granted to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Wallonia is granted to the uncrowned Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours. Both states have their independence guaranteed by the Great Powers, but have neutrality enforced upon them - despite Belgium's desire for close relations with Britain, and Wallonia's with France.

Thoughts?

My thinking is that Wallonia industrialises as OTL, but Belgium is able to use its sea-access as a natural route for Walloon exports and there the two countries become quite economically dependent on one another. Wallonia gets completely occupied by the Germans in the First World War, along with bits of Belgium. Both countries are occupied during the Second World War, and restored after the war. This also butterflies the Congo Free State I imagine...

I see it as likely that at some point the French and Walloon will attempt to merge together, especially should a Franco-Prussian War still take place. Something which, after France was humbled rather drastically in that war, would not alter excessively the balance of power.
A French Wallonia would likely reduce significatively the effectiveness of an alt-Schlieffen plan.