What would the lack of a July Monarchy have meant for the Belgian Revolution?

The summer of 1830 was a doozy. The French monarchy fell in July, to be replaced by the more liberal Orleanist kingdom, and not long after, the Catholic provinces of the Netherlands were in rebellion. Assuming the former being avoided does not prevent the latter, what becomes of Belgium? Does it still come into existence? Could Louis-Philippe end up king there instead of ruling France in OTL? Discuss.
 
The summer of 1830 was a doozy. The French monarchy fell in July, to be replaced by the more liberal Orleanist kingdom, and not long after, the Catholic provinces of the Netherlands were in rebellion. Assuming the former being avoided does not prevent the latter, what becomes of Belgium? Does it still come into existence? Could Louis-Philippe end up king there instead of ruling France in OTL? Discuss.
Without the Orleanist takeover in France, is more likely seeing OTL Belgium’s rebellion resolved with a return to the status quo as the separation between Netherlands and Belgium was not inevitable in OTL and ATL would be much less likely. Also giving Belgium to any French prince is a big no for England.
 
the Catholic provinces of the Netherlands were in rebellion.
Not correct. The province of North Brabant for example, most certainly catholic, did not revolt.

In response to your question, without French intervenention the Dutch would probably have a militairy victory against the Belgians and will be able to restore order. The 10 day campaign of the Dutch was pretty much a succes, until the French intervened. Even if Belgium comes into existence (which I doubt) at least the border will be more advantages to the Dutch (Belgian Limburg and Luxemburg remain Dutch, a better connection of Zeelandic Flanders to the Netherlands, etc).
 
I don’t think it’d be the end of Belgian independence movements even if the revolution was defeated, the idea of that region being it’s own country didn’t begin in 1830 and it probably wouldn’t die either. Nationalism isn’t fully developed as an ideology/concept yet, and there’d probably be revolutions in 1848 again, and possibly later. I’m sure Nap. 3 would have interests in seeing the region separated from the Netherlands, if he still comes to power.
 
I don’t think it’d be the end of Belgian independence movements even if the revolution was defeated, the idea of that region being it’s own country didn’t begin in 1830 and it probably wouldn’t die either. Nationalism isn’t fully developed as an ideology/concept yet, and there’d probably be revolutions in 1848 again, and possibly later. I’m sure Nap. 3 would have interests in seeing the region separated from the Netherlands, if he still comes to power.
It is certainly not the end of the movement. That said, if the independence movement would be crushed some leaders would be arrested, several would simply flee abroad. So the sting would be removed, at least for the moment. And when we approach 1848 there would be a more general unrest in the Netherlands, OTL leading to Thorbecke and its new constitution. I think something similar would be happeing in this timeline, some Belgians revolutionaries (possible even most) would support Thorbecke and with the new constitution most problems the Belgians had would be adressed. Than you also get the rise of Flemish nationalism, ot at least the Flemish opposition against the Francophone upper and middle class, which ties them closer to the Netherlands. In the end I think that if the Belgian revolt would be crushed there is a good chance there never will be a Belgium. Although I could see a possibility of Wallonia splitting of.
 
Without the example of the July Revolution, there may be no uprising in Belgium but a continued reform movement. If there is an uprising, it probably is defeated, as it seems unlikely that Charles X would support a revolt against a monarch. He might sympathize with the grievances of Belgian Catholics but that would probably be all.
 
Great insights everyone. Would a Bourbon restoration interested in growing its influence really stay out of the crisis in the Netherlands if it unfolded anyway? Obviously, here would be weariness about revolutionaries, but there's also the chance of growing French influence.
 
I think it depends on what happens in France. Are we talking a failed July Revolution (ie the army and Garde Royale restore order) or an avoided July revolution? If the former Charles X does nothing, as he has his hands full dealing with the aftermath of a failed revolution, but the later might be quite different. At the end of the Hundred days in 1815 France lost control of several border districts to the Netherlands that they had held between 1792 and the first restoration in 1814; I can see Charles X making a play to try and regain these districts, perhaps in exchange for armed intervention or even as a bribe to keep the French out of the Belgian revolt.
 
I think it depends on what happens in France. Are we talking a failed July Revolution (ie the army and Garde Royale restore order) or an avoided July revolution? If the former Charles X does nothing, as he has his hands full dealing with the aftermath of a failed revolution, but the later might be quite different. At the end of the Hundred days in 1815 France lost control of several border districts to the Netherlands that they had held between 1792 and the first restoration in 1814; I can see Charles X making a play to try and regain these districts, perhaps in exchange for armed intervention or even as a bribe to keep the French out of the Belgian revolt.
France going in with the intention of gaining land, or at least making it obvious that is the intention*, would make internationaly speaking a big difference. I don't think Britain or Prussia would want France to actualy gain more territory. So the chances of them supporting the Netherlands in the conflict would be a lot better, especialy considering the United kingdom of the Netherlands was set up to stop France's expansionism.



*I believe OTL invention also had the hope of gaining something out of it
 
I think it depends on what happens in France. Are we talking a failed July Revolution (ie the army and Garde Royale restore order) or an avoided July revolution? If the former Charles X does nothing, as he has his hands full dealing with the aftermath of a failed revolution, but the later might be quite different. At the end of the Hundred days in 1815 France lost control of several border districts to the Netherlands that they had held between 1792 and the first restoration in 1814; I can see Charles X making a play to try and regain these districts, perhaps in exchange for armed intervention or even as a bribe to keep the French out of the Belgian revolt.
Really great question. I was probably leaning toward the army restores order, but I am open to other possibilities, including Charles quiet abdicating in favor of his son. What though would any/all of these mean for the Algerian Campaign, which, I think, had already started?
 
Top