Would the Dutch fall under Stuart control after Elizabeth's death or would their union with England dissolve?
Q: Why did Elizabeth I refuse the offer of sovereignty from the Dutch?
- Thread starter Vercigentorix
- Start date
That would be negotiable I suppose--but odds are the easy solution is for the union to dissolve. James was considered reliably Protestant I believe, but I would guess the various factors drawing the Stuarts to a Catholic orientation would not be unknown--it might be worth one's head to remark on them in any traceable, public way. But the Dutch would be very nervous about any possibility of getting drawn into a union subordinating them to another Catholic monarch I'd think.
Now I am wondering about the possibility of dropping Scotland from the union, hoping to maintain an alliance without dynastic union on the grounds the Stuarts were supposed to be Protestant--and if the Stuart monarch has only Scotland for their base, the Scottish Protestants might be counted on to rein in any Catholic dalliances one way or another.
I do not know the actual confessional demographics of Scotland in the early 17th century, and probably any claims on the subject are based on inference, not indisputable facts. I would guess a good scholar could set lower and upper bounds on Scottish Catholics, and on the various Protestant sects in Scotland. Anyway there were I believe predominantly Catholic regions even in Scotland, and while I'd guess the Protestants outnumbered them, these things were not settled democratically in these days; the Protestants clearly had the upper hand in terms of power but the Catholics might have enough assets to mess up the kingdom if not negotiated with carefully.
Anyway despite certain demographics being Catholic, I would guess Scotland overall was more strongly Protestant than England, especially factoring in that the dominant rite in Scotland was Calvinist while Anglicanism was a big tent with wings the more radical Protestants despised as de facto Catholic, or anyway nearly as bad, and of course there was a lot of deception involved. So, relegate the Stuart dynasty back to Scotland and it might be guessed Scotland would remain on the Protestant side of the line no matter what.
Then the Dutch come up with a suitable heir to the combined Netherlands-English throne. If such an heir can marry into the Tudors somehow, so much the better.
Despite all I said, I suppose there is a chance that if Elizabeth had made this impetuous leap, the alliance would prevail. I have only Mattingly's say-so that Parma was a good bet to win in the lowlands. Honestly I don't see how the English fusing with the beleaguered Dutch would greatly improve the latter's chances, beyond the aid Elizabeth did send them OTL. Certainly the English proved capable of defending their own shores, and this was hardly a happy accident or Act of God--it was in fact mainly down to the fact that the English had been attracting top-rate gunsmiths to settle there, and supporting the development of more powerful, longer range naval cannon than Philip could lay hands on. Mattingly stresses other English advantages in the Armada fight too--very largely that the Spanish were striking at a distant target far from their own bases, while the English were defending their own coast. Thus a great many advantages for the English--they were rested for starters; Elizabeth refused to keep English ships on standby and that meant their crews were mostly living on land, in far less debilitating conditions, also she saved up money that would be used in the battle itself. The Spanish crews (the Armada was actually quite a multinational lot, but under Spanish command anyway) had been living on shipboard supplies, suffering shipboard malnutrition, for weeks, a problem compounded by an earlier raid by Francis Drake that had decimated much of the seasoned timber supply suitable for making storage casks. Both sides expended cannonballs and powder far faster than either side dreamed possible, but English ships could pop over to a port and hope to scrounge up more; the Spanish had no reloads. And so on...but the main thing was that when English ships came in close, close enough to risk some damage from Spanish fire, their more powerful guns did a lot more damage to the Spanish ships.
Elizabeth tying her island kingdom to the Dutch would probably still leave the English with most of these advantages, and conceivably had Parma been able to secure all the Lowlands, and commandeer Dutch vessels to try to force the crossing to England at close range, perhaps the English naval defenders would still pound his troopships and send many to the bottom, perhaps enough for English armies to prevail against the remnant. But if Philip were going to rely on such a strategy rather than his attempt to settle the matter ASAP, Elizabeth would be mad to pledge herself as queen-protector of Dutch she could not actually defend! Surely it would have to involve heavier expenditures, and Elizabeth was nervous about trying to gouge the English taxpayer too much. Everything spent on defending the Netherlands would appear to many English to be English money that ought to have been spent to protect English shores.
Now the payoff if the gamble worked, and the union could stop the Hapsburgs on land as well as at sea, would be pretty high; the Anglo-Dutch Union would be clearly the greatest leading power among the Protestants and the Union might pick up more allies. But they would still be Davids against the Hapsburg Goliath, and the Union would no doubt be drawn ever deeper into the vortex of the continental religious wars. Perhaps with suitable allies they could beat the Catholic alliance more thoroughly and sooner--but the Thirty Years War went on that long for reasons, and I don't think the north European Protestants could knock them out much more quickly or with a lot less loss.
Meanwhile we have these dynastic needles to thread. The English and Dutch with forces joined might have accomplished spectacular things later in the 17th century; the trick is to survive the first half of that century!
Yes. As a rule of thumb, it was the highlands and the hebrides that remained predominantly catholic (and gaelic speaking for that matter) while the lowlands were/became predominantly protestant (and scots speaking).
Like i said, if Lady Kathrine Grey hadn't gotten a secret second marriage she was likely high on Elizabeth's list for her heir, though im not sure with regards to dutch princes; my immediate thought is to look to William the silent's sons, but Philip is in spanish custody and a catholic toboot, and Maurice is 20 some years Kathrine's junior.
William's brother John has had two previous marriages by this point with many children but is open for a third. If the next oldest brother, Louis, had survived he would've been a good choice.
My question would be on the inheritance of such an entity. An Elizabeth with kids would be clear. But without? What happens when she dies? Sure, a Britain-Netherlands union is possible, but if she sends idiots like Leicester and Essex to Holland instead of Ireland, things might turn anti-English VERY quickly, no?
There was talk of a marriage between James VI (or his cousin, Orkney) and Emilia of Nassau, full-sister of Maurits of Nassau, but I somehow suspect that if James is to be KING of the place, he isn't going to marry the daughter of one of his subjects
Concerning Elizabeth's title(s): I assume that she would indeed become Duchess of Brabant, Countess of Holland, Lady of Utrecht (Vrouwe van Utrecht - like all other female 'Heren' in the Netherlands), etc., but might officiously become known as 'Vorstin der Nederlanden' (or something to that effect), the title gradually - over the course of some generations - becoming more official. Assuming of course that the personal union would last.
Something (somewhat) similar happened when James VI of Scotland became James I of England: he started styling himself 'king of Great Britain and Ireland', but remained 'king of England' in all English statutes. He did force Scotland to use it and used it on coinage, proclamations and even treaties.
The evolution of Elizabeth's (and her successor's) style might be similar, although I expect she would refrain from forcing the local Staten (as in: the staten of Brabant, Holland, etc.) to use it out of political prudence (assuming she was interested in such things at all). After all, the Dutch revolut was as much about preserving traditional local autonomies against a centralising monarchy as it was about religion.
Something (somewhat) similar happened when James VI of Scotland became James I of England: he started styling himself 'king of Great Britain and Ireland', but remained 'king of England' in all English statutes. He did force Scotland to use it and used it on coinage, proclamations and even treaties.
The evolution of Elizabeth's (and her successor's) style might be similar, although I expect she would refrain from forcing the local Staten (as in: the staten of Brabant, Holland, etc.) to use it out of political prudence (assuming she was interested in such things at all). After all, the Dutch revolut was as much about preserving traditional local autonomies against a centralising monarchy as it was about religion.
Last edited:
I don't think we can confidently speak of an English Civil War or Cromwellian rule at all. English sovereignty over the Netherlands will cause major butterflies.
I think the Anglo-Dutch Union would survive the transition to James, if only out of fear of Spain/France/The HRE. However, I could also see Elizabeth marrying a member of the House of Orange (maybe William) in order to secure legitimacy over Holland, which would likely butterlfy james's reign
Most is mentioned. I can only add that there's also the point that this was a revolt against the god given sovereign. That's a reason for her to be reluctant. Also the fact that this was done by commons and she was offered the sovereignty by those commons wasn't enticing. She can't fully legitimize such a foreign movement as it offers precedent in her own country, and the North was already so often rebellious.
Either that or the ones that signed the pacification of Gent (That means all except Luxembourg) She seemed to like to return to that arrangement. And actually preferably under the Spanish King. This would be weaken him enough.
That was always tied to the payback of a substantial loan. I don't think it was meant to last.
That doesn't give real legitimacy as William of Orange didn't have a claim of sovereignty of Holland or any of the other provinces.
Wasn't the statist/orangist conflict already taking shape by then?
William of Orange was seen as a national hero, so it would definitely mean something.