The Glorious Revolution

Is there any way the Netherlands and England could stay united after the Glorious Revolution? Preferably administrated separately, à la Portugal and Spain from 1580 to 1640. What would the effects be over the next 200 years or so? I'm thinking of making a mod for Victoria 2, the grand strategy game, and was wondering how this would affect history in the period.
 
Hard to imagine. They were rivals on almost all matters exception for religion. At that time, common religion had long ceased to be the key factor for uniting 2 différent areas, especially of separated by sea.

It was just a personal union because William of Orange happened to be the husband of the heir queen chosen by the dominant party who wanted the future monarchs to remain protestant.
 
How long, at maximum, do you think the two would stay united? I'm interested more in how this would affect European politics over the next two centuries. Even if the two separated fairly soon, if the Dutch and English were more closely associated, what effects would this have on the way other European monarchies acted towards them, and what effects would it have on their colonial empires? Would the Dutch retain South Africa? Ceylon? New Amsterdam/York even? Would they be viewed as more of a threat by nearby continentals?
 
Well, the simple(ish) answer is for William and Mary to have a son!

Still not entirely certain, since the Stadtholdership was not strictly hereditary.
 
Why would William's son succeed his father as Stadtholder ?

In our TL, though he had chosen a cousin as heir, the dutch provinces decided to abolish the Stadtholdership.
 
Why would William's son succeed his father as Stadtholder ?

In our TL, though he had chosen a cousin as heir, the dutch provinces decided to abolish the Stadtholdership.

Correct this is one the problems a continued personal union would have. The stadholdership is not hereditary, in theory at least. In practice it more or less was. The (non-catholic) son of William the silent, Maurice, became stadholder after Willem died. When Maurice died without children, his brother became stadholder and when he died his son became stadholder and when he died...

Ok, when he died his son wasn't born (yet), so the Dutch decided no stadholder for a while. But 22 years later they did appoint the son (born after his father died) stadholder. That son later became king of England and I suspect that if he would have had a son, there is a good chance he would become stadholder and the personal union would have continued.

The thing though is that the personal union between the Dutch republic and England/Scotland never actualy was a personal union. A stadholder is not the same thing as a king and William III wasn't even stadholderover all the Dutch provinces (just the most important ones). You most certainly would never get a union, like with Scotland happened and I think it is likely that after a couple of generations, at least some provinces (Holland) would appoint someone else as stadholder (maybe a second son of the king, or the Frisian stadholders), to get rid of the English stadholders. Some provinces might keep the king as stadholder. I could see Gelderland doing that.

Anyway, this would have no effect on New York, as it was English already and with massive butterflies as these a Dutch South Africa and Ceylon are extremely likely (you probably would avoid or at least alter the French revolution and Napoleonic wars).

Also, I would like to remind people that not only Mary, but William was in line of the English throne as well, being the son of a daughter of Charles I. So if William and Mary don't have children, but William remarries and has a son. That son would be next in line to the English throne, when/if queen Anne dies without children.
 
If all the rest of Europe allied against the risk of union of France of Spain under the same king, why would it no do the same against the risk of union of the 2 greatest trade and financiel powers of the time ?

Besides, the United Provinces would be even more vulnerable to invasion than Hanover was when the Hanover dynasty reigned on GB and Hanover. Hanover was then much more a liability than an asset for Britain.
 
If all the rest of Europe allied against the risk of union of France of Spain under the same king, why would it no do the same against the risk of union of the 2 greatest trade and financiel powers of the time ?

Besides, the United Provinces would be even more vulnerable to invasion than Hanover was when the Hanover dynasty reigned on GB and Hanover. Hanover was then much more a liability than an asset for Britain.

There's a big difference between a Franco-Spanish Union and a British-Dutch Union. For one, Spain was the largest empire in the world and France was the greatest military power. With the size of Spain's empire and the military strength of France there was a real possibility that they could dominate Europe. Think a more dangerous version of the Empire of Charles V.

As for a British-Dutch Union, none of the European powers objected in 1689, so why would they later? When William III and Mary II became King and Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland they joined the Netherlands with the British Isles, at least temporarily. Mary was young enough to be able to have children, thus creating the possibility of a permanent Union between England and the Netherlands. yes they were great maritime powers and yes William III managed to create a great army before parliament forced him to disband it but there was never the same danger to the balance of power that there was from a Franco-Spanish Union.

Also, I would say that the Netherlands was much easier to defend then Hanover. For one British could easily send troops over the Channel to Amsterdam. For two, the Dutch were able to defend themselves much better then the Hanovarians. Plus, as the dutch can flood their own country as a last resort.
 
Interesting, interesting. Thank you for the in-depth discussion. For whatever reason, whenever I thought of this scenario, I imagined the two splitting apart again within the next few centuries, similar to Britain and Hanover, even though the laws that prevented female monarchs from coming to power in Hanover (that is what happened, right?) weren't there in the Netherlands, as far as I know.

Pompejus, I am very curious about the butterflies you mentioned, as I am asking this in thought of a mod to a game. If this were to happen (William and Mary having a son, the semi-union continues for two or three generations, they split apart, my only insistence being that the Netherlands stay whole) how would these events most likely manifest themselves on the global scale? I noticed you said that the napoleonic wars would likely not happen. Is there any specific reason you think that, or is it that any large change that long ago would change the situation too much? What other butterflies do you think occur? For instance, would this change the fate of Dutch Brazil? It seems like a lot of things were up in the air at that time, and I'm curious how the chips would fall (to mix metaphors). You seem knowledgeable on the subject. You too, Emperor Constantine.

I'd appreciate your opinion as well, Matteo, especially if you gave a more in-depth answer.
 

Cook

Banned
I love the term The Glorious Revolution, it rolls off the tongue so much easier than The Dutch Invasion of England at the invite of local Quislings.
 
Interesting, interesting. Thank you for the in-depth discussion. For whatever reason, whenever I thought of this scenario, I imagined the two splitting apart again within the next few centuries, similar to Britain and Hanover, even though the laws that prevented female monarchs from coming to power in Hanover (that is what happened, right?) weren't there in the Netherlands, as far as I know.

Pompejus, I am very curious about the butterflies you mentioned, as I am asking this in thought of a mod to a game. If this were to happen (William and Mary having a son, the semi-union continues for two or three generations, they split apart, my only insistence being that the Netherlands stay whole) how would these events most likely manifest themselves on the global scale? I noticed you said that the napoleonic wars would likely not happen. Is there any specific reason you think that, or is it that any large change that long ago would change the situation too much? What other butterflies do you think occur? For instance, would this change the fate of Dutch Brazil? It seems like a lot of things were up in the air at that time, and I'm curious how the chips would fall (to mix metaphors). You seem knowledgeable on the subject. You too, Emperor Constantine.

I'd appreciate your opinion as well, Matteo, especially if you gave a more in-depth answer.

I'd be glad to attempt a more in depth answer. For one, I would disagree about the Napoleonic wars. The French revolution would no doubt still occur with a British-Dutch Union. Hell it's more likely if two of France's strongest rivals are unified under one dynasty. France's main problem was its reckless spending on wars, so I don't see how such a union would negate the spending. I wonder if it would make Austria turn to France earlier however. Also, Dutch Brazil was lost in 1654 so no chance whatsoever of it being saved. A interesting question is how would a union effect the Sovereign's powers. In Britain, with a surviving Stuart-Orange Dynasty, Id imagine the Crown would, like the Hanoverians, exercise their influence and prerogatives freely but what about their powers as Stadtholder in the Netherlands? Was the Stadtholder more powerful in terms of authority than the King was? If so, the Stuarts might start to turn to the Netherlands to exercise more absolute authority, similar to how the Hanoverians were absolute rulers in Hanover. Another interesting point would be the Crown's budget. I would imagine it would be much larger, with funds voted from both Parliament and the Estates General, combined with the House of Orange's holdings in the Netherlands itself. Thirdly, the Netherlands might not become a declining power. One of the main problems,at least in my opinion, was the regencies they experienced in the 18th century. Both William IV and William V came to the "throne" at very young ages. William IV was literally, like William III, born ruler and William V became Stadholder/Prince of Orange at age three. Between them there was 38 years of regency. I believe that such long periods of time without someone at the helm, so to speak, took its tole on the Dutch government. Fourthly, who would rule the Netherlands? I assume the Stuart-Orange monarch would reside in London, do would a relative be appointed Regent, like how the Habsburgs appointed relatives as governors of their various territories or would the dutch from a sort of Regency council? As for breaking up the Union, a good choice would be to have a female become Sovereign and have the Netherlands follow Salic law (in fact I think they might have, I'm really not sure) and go with an Uncle or male line cousin as Stadtholder or perhaps King later down the line.

What game would this be a mod for, if you don't mind me asking?
 
There's a big difference between a Franco-Spanish Union and a British-Dutch Union. For one, Spain was the largest empire in the world and France was the greatest military power. With the size of Spain's empire and the military strength of France there was a real possibility that they could dominate Europe. Think a more dangerous version of the Empire of Charles V.

As for a British-Dutch Union, none of the European powers objected in 1689, so why would they later? When William III and Mary II became King and Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland they joined the Netherlands with the British Isles, at least temporarily. Mary was young enough to be able to have children, thus creating the possibility of a permanent Union between England and the Netherlands. yes they were great maritime powers and yes William III managed to create a great army before parliament forced him to disband it but there was never the same danger to the balance of power that there was from a Franco-Spanish Union.

Also, I would say that the Netherlands was much easier to defend then Hanover. For one British could easily send troops over the Channel to Amsterdam. For two, the Dutch were able to defend themselves much better then the Hanovarians. Plus, as the dutch can flood their own country as a last resort.

Well, there is a good reason why the european powers did not object in 1689. It is because it was in 1689, that is at the beginning of the war of the league of Augsburg where most of western and central Europe allied against France and its bavarian and ottoman allies. And also because there was no heir.

You will also have noticed that after the war of the league of Augsburg, there was immediately the war of the spanish succession and that at teh end of this second war, in 1713/14, though victory was rather not on the side of France, there was in the end a french prince on the spanish throne.

My opinion is that all Europe was also aware of the power of GB in the beginning of the 18th century.

They wanted no domination of Europe, be it by :
- the kind of power of the Habsburgs who dominated the Sapin and its empire, the HRE, and Italy,
- a french empire that would have united under the same crown France, Sapin and the spanish possessions,
- or a lastable union of GB and Netherlands.

You would have had a coalition of all catholic Europe against this mega protestant power.

And I don't think the Dutch would gladly say : "great ! Let's flood our country to defend ourselves". It was a terrible, last hope solution, like using the atomic bomb today : almost self destruction to prevent total defeat.
 
Thanks for the answers guys. Emperor Constantine, if I remember correctly, the stadtholder was less powerful than the king of England at the time, perhaps having more similarities to the later British monarchs, mostly just being very wealthy people whose opinion was very respected. I might be wrong of course. As to how they might split apart, the Dutch technically elected the stadtholder, but the position was practically hereditary. Perhaps after a few generations they might elect someone else, perhaps due to neglect from the now mostly-English monarchs. The game is Victoria 2, a grand strategy game by paradox. It spans from 1836 to 1936. If you are interested in the time period (the concert of Europe, the industrial revolution, spheres of influence) I would suggest picking it up the next time it goes on sale.

Matteo, I think that the coalition is possible, but I don't think it is certain. How would they fair against the other crowned heads of Europe? It sounds like they are currently exhausting themselves in a war between the French, Bavaria, the Ottomans and everyone else(?). Perhaps this coalition might not grow very large due to this? Or perhaps it might happen later, closer to 1700. I don't know what shape England's navy was in at this point, but, if Brittania was ruling the waves as they would later do, is it possible the English might land their armies in the Netherlands and rely on their navy to prevent invasion of the island? Surely the Dutch and English navies combined could defend Great Britain's shores, and it's quite reasonable to expect a combined English-Dutch army to be able to hold the Netherlands defensively, yes? I'm very interested in your opinion on the matter.
 
Top