Philip of Bourbon-Parma, King of Belgium?

[Diamantina]

Wikipedia states in its entry on Philip, Duke of Parma (1720-1765):

As part of the Treaty of Versailles (1757) between Austria and France, it was intended that Phillip would become king of the Southern Netherlands in a deal that would see French troops occupy key positions in the country – however this arrangement was repudiated by the subsequent Third Treaty of Versailles and Phillip continued in Parma.​

What if the 1757 Treaty of Versailles had lasted and Philip had become King of Belgium (the Latin term for the Austrian Netherlands was Belgium Austriacum), thus founding a Bourbon-Parma dynasty in that country? And what about Philip's enlightened minister, Guillaume du Tillot (born in Bayonne, the son of a valet)? Instead of becoming the Marchese di Felino, I assume that he would end up becoming Marquis de Dinant or some other Wallonian town.

Would the Bourbon-Parma dynasty have been better for Belgium in the long run than the Saxe-Coburg dynasty? Would Belgium under the Bourbon-Parmas be seen as a French puppet state?

 

[Clandango]

I would say it would be seen as a bit of a puppet. I do wonder if they would speak French, Italian, or Flemish there. And if French, would they evolve from the local dialects of Artoise, Walloons, etc?

 

[aenigma]

Cant get much worse then saxe coburg in my view outside a few exeptions
out of the entire line so far the only 2 i see in a positive view are philippe and albert 1

albert 1 wel lets face it the guy fought alongside the army in ww1 the entire 4years on the frontline putting himself in the same danger as his men
defending the last piece of belgium that was not occupied, then liberated belgium at the end of the war as leader of the army group in flanders.

i doubt many kings of that era would do that


then again while most of the saxe coburg where very pro-french to neutral at best(despite german heritage)i'm sure bourbon-parma would be seen as a puppet/even worse pro french

 

[Diamantina]

I would say it would be seen as a bit of a puppet. I do wonder if they would speak French, Italian, or Flemish there. And if French, would they evolve from the local dialects of Artoise, Walloons, etc?

The Bourbon-Parmas would have been fluent in French, like most royalty and nobility in 18th-century Europe. Probably French (based on Parisian norms) would have been the official language, with Flemish decidedly in second place.

Ed.: The wife of Philip of Bourbon-Parma was Louise Élisabeth of France (1727-1759), eldest daughter of Louis XV and Maria Leszczyńska. The influence of a Queen Louise Élisabeth would probably make the Belgian court quite Gallicized -- and in this timeline she probably does not die in 1759, since she is in Belgium and probably would not have made a visit to Versailles (where she caught the smallpox that killed her).

 

[ramones1986]

If that actually happened, would Brussels became its capital, or other cities like Charleroi and even Namur?

 

[Diamantina]

If that actually happened, would Brussels became its capital, or other cities like Charleroi and even Namur?

Good idea. I had not thought of that. Which Belgian cities were the most prominent in the mid-18th century?

 

[Diamantina]

Cant get much worse then saxe coburg in my view outside a few exeptions
out of the entire line so far the only 2 i see in a positive view are philippe and albert 1

albert 1 wel lets face it the guy fought alongside the army in ww1 the entire 4years on the frontline putting himself in the same danger as his men
defending the last piece of belgium that was not occupied, then liberated belgium at the end of the war as leader of the army group in flanders.

i doubt many kings of that era would do that


then again while most of the saxe coburg where very pro-french to neutral at best(despite german heritage)i'm sure bourbon-parma would be seen as a puppet/even worse pro french

Yes, Albert I was a remarkable man and a worthy king -- one of the kings who would have been good and effective even if they had no kingdom to their name. And yes, most of the Saxe-Coburg line did not come up to Albert I's standard. Since I do not know much about Belgian politics, what are the reasons that you see King Philippe favorably? (I apologize for going OT.)

 

[Diamantina]

The Bourbon-Parmas would have been fluent in French, like most royalty and nobility in 18th-century Europe. Probably French (based on Parisian norms) would have been the official language, with Flemish decidedly in second place.

Ed.: The wife of Philip of Bourbon-Parma was Louise Élisabeth of France (1727-1759), eldest daughter of Louis XV and Maria Leszczyńska. The influence of a Queen Louise Élisabeth would probably make the Belgian court quite Gallicized -- and in this timeline she probably does not die in 1759, since she is in Belgium and probably would not have made a visit to Versailles (where she caught the smallpox that killed her).

By the way, Louise Élisabeth (nicknamed Babette by her father) seems to have been a fairly interesting woman. She was apparently ambitious for a throne, and seems to have been vital in arranging that her husband be named to the throne of the Austrian Netherlands. When that failed, she seems to have spent more time at Versailles than with her husband. Philip was apparently more artistically than politically inclined, but did allow his prime minister Guillaume du Tillot to create public schools in Parma, as well as redevelop the University of Parma into one of the major universities in Europe and develop industries in Parma. If Philip, Louise Élisabeth and Du Tillot go to Belgium, I assume that their capital (whether Brussels, Charleroi or Namur) would likewise shine. Also, Philip probably would not die in 1765 in this timeline. Let us hope that they live into the 1780s together.

 

[aenigma]

Yes, Albert I was a remarkable man and a worthy king -- one of the kings who would have been good and effective even if they had no kingdom to their name. And yes, most of the Saxe-Coburg line did not come up to Albert I's standard. Since I do not know much about Belgian politics, what are the reasons that you see King Philippe favorably? (I apologize for going OT.)

my positive view has a few reasons to be fair
Phillipe was widely considered unready, not capable to be king and to be to stiff in general for the job in the decades before albert2 stepped down.
and in my view he has proven that they where wrong so far.

to be fair you dont have to do much to do better then the previous king, albert2 was simply never in belgium and was and stil is living in south france or on his yacht 85% of the year and only seemed to do the minimum work or come to belgium during crisis (we ussually got a crisis about every election due to dutch/french tensions)

another reason i got a positive view of the the current king is that he is the first ruler to send his children to a flemish school and Elisabeth is 15 now and fluent in dutch,german and french.
while this may look small one have to consider that up to now all royalty was educated french and before Albert 2 none of the rulers where even able to speak dutch or barely, wich is sad for a country with 60% flemish 35% french (more or less)

and a third reason would be that i got more respect for the king after reading a book biography a few years back about Albert 2 & co wich included about the childhood of king Philippe and his younger brother prince laurent,
the book gave me a more positive view of Philippe while my view of both Albert2 en the younger brother of Philippe dropped significant since. it also shed some light at why he seemed to stiff and something bit awkward back then.
forgot the name of the book but was in flemish and i can look it up later if you want.

also note that technicle belgium has 2 kings currently
albert2 stil has the title and stil supposed to work for the country, but he doesnt do anyhing and refuses to meet his son(s) at all or do anything related to them.
even refused to attent the juli 21 national holiday wich was a big deal last year
'poor' fellow was angry a while to because he only gets 900 000 euro a year instead of the 1.2million he was promised by the prime minister at the time of his abdication.

 

[Diamantina]

Thanks, aenigma, for your helpful entry about King Philippe (the current king, not the Duke of Parma who becomes King Philippe in my timeline). I do not speak Dutch (my closest connection to the language is a very sweet Dutch-Indonesian lady whom I know from church and who is now in frail health: she grew up speaking Dutch and has a thick accent when she speaks English -- by the way, she was in a Japanese internment camp in Indonesia when she was a girl during WWII), and my French is mediocre to poor. If and when the biography of Albert II is translated into English or French (I can get by reading in French), please tell me.

I think that it is an excellent idea that Philippe sent his children to a Flemish school. Considering that the majority of Belgium is Flemish, it makes sense, even though French is a more prominent language than Dutch

 

[aenigma]

personally i would have loved the idea of a capitol further south, changes are good that brussels would have remained flemish majority in that case.
probably would have killed or may kill belgium to since both flemish nationalists and royalists want to keep brussels for themself and refuse to give it up.

wel i took a look at major cities demograpics
in 1830 it seems to be populationwise according to the dutch wiki

brussels 98k
gent 83k
antwerpen 77k
brugge 42k

liege 58k
charleroi 54k in 1841(seemed to be significantly less before that)
namur 20k

personally i dont see a small provincial town namur becoming the capitol in 1830
liege seem to close to the german border for comfort for a very pro french bufferstate.
wel charleroi is the most depressing city of europe right now, so it can only go up if that was taken i gues

i dont see ghent or antwerp or brugge becoming it either, mostly because they viewed flemish as inferior to french at the time
and there was a orangist movement in most of those flemish cities, with a fair amount of flemish wanting to return to the netherlands.

 

[Diamantina]

What about Leuven (Louvain)? The Catholic University is quite famous (I know of it mostly because Archbishop Fulton Sheen earned his Ph.D. there). And since Philip of Bourbon-Parma and Du Tillot brought prominence to the University of Parma in our TL, would it make sense if Louven became the capital?

 

[aenigma]

leuven is a flemish city with a small population in 1830 (25k or so)
and its very close to the much more important brussels so i think it is unlikely

louvain is the french name for the flemish city so wouldnt use that
especially since Louvain-le-neuve also exists as a city and university since 1970ish (due to languageconflicts) (name is essentually new leuven)

i would say ghent or liege seems more likely then
both had a brand new university since 1817 (thanks to the dutch)
and both where far more important cities

 

[Diamantina]

OK, but the POD is 1757. Ghent and Liege would not have had universities then, I think. So the capital would be either Brussels or Charleroi?

 

[aenigma]

OK, but the POD is 1757. Ghent and Liege would not have had universities then, I think. So the capital would be either Brussels or Charleroi?

my bad i forgot about 1757
i have my doubts that charleroi is viable back then as capitol
also they have no university either

charleroi was a city growing fast in 1841
but wasnt more then a village in 1666 surrounded by forest

so fairly sure charleroi is a minor town at best in 1757 and all the major cities would have been in flandern at the time(brussels, ghent, antwerp, brugge and so on)
also note in 1757 liege was not part of the walloons but a independend bishop in the hre

 

[Diamantina]

my bad i forgot about 1757
i have my doubts that charleroi is viable back then as capitol
also they have no university either

charleroi was a city growing fast in 1841
but wasnt more then a village in 1666 surrounded by forest

so fairly sure charleroi is a minor town at best in 1757 and all the major cities would have been in flandern at the time(brussels, ghent, antwerp, brugge and so on)
also note in 1757 liege was not part of the walloons but a independend bishop in the hre

So let us have Brussels for the capital of a Belgian kingdom established in 1757. What next?