WI: Queen Elizabeth accepts the Dutch crown

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

So IOTL Queen Elizabeth was offered the Dutch crown, but she did not accept it.

In 16th-century Europe, most countries had a king or other noble as head of state. Having repudiated Philip, the States-General of the Netherlands tried to find a suitable replacement. The Protestant Queen of England, Elizabeth I, seemed the obvious choice to be protector of the Netherlands. Elizabeth, however, found the idea abhorrent. Her intervention for the French Huguenots (see the Treaty of Hampton Court) had been a costly mistake, and she had resolved never again to involve herself in the domestic affairs of any of her fellow monarchs. Not only would intervention provoke Philip, but it would set a dangerous precedent. If she could interfere in the affairs of other monarchs, they could return the favour. (Elizabeth did later provide aid to the Dutch rebels in the Treaty of Nonsuch (1585), and as a consequence Philip aided Irish rebels in the Nine Years' War.)

According to Wikipedia she did not accept it because of her failed interventions in favour of the French protestants. But say she never intervened. And then accepted the Dutch crown. How would the Dutch was of independence play out? How would the thirty years was play out?

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

I could see the thirty years war playing out in favour of the Habsburgs. As the Spanish would not waste boat-loads of soldiers and cash on the low lands

 

[HJ Tulp]

I could see the thirty years war playing out in favour of the Habsburgs. As the Spanish would not waste boat-loads of soldiers and cash on the low lands

Why would Elizabeths decision cause this? I would think that direct English intervention would intensify the conflict if anything.

Also, a lot would depend on the way English involvement is organized. The English forces under Dudley arguably did more bad than good as they had a nasty tendency to sell the fortresses under their control back to the Spanish.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

Why would Elizabeths decision cause this? I would think that direct English intervention would intensify the conflict if anything.

That's fair. Could we see a more direct French involvement? Or were they still to busy with the wars of religion?

Also, a lot would depend on the way English involvement is organized. The English forces under Dudley arguably did more bad than good as they had a nasty tendency to sell the fortresses under their control back to the Spanish.

The selling of fortresses probably would not happen, seeing as Elizabeth has a more direct stake in the conflict. So she wouldn't want her commanders selling her own fortresses to the enemy.

 

[Thoresby]

The English forces under Dudley arguably did more bad than good as they had a nasty tendency to sell the fortresses under their control back to the Spanish.

Dudley full stop did more harm than good. Elizabeth was blessed with some very able ministers and commanders and was a brilliant woman herself but her taste in favourites was abysmal.
As to the OP I think it would weaken the cause of the rebels with more English support would come more English meddling and that would inevitably cause problems and divide the Dutch rebels which could only benefit the Hapsburgs. It also weakens the nationalist element as both options involve a foreign monarch ruling over the Netherlands. It could potentially cause religious disputes in both England and the low countries as moderate Elizabethan religious settlement is meaningfully different from the Calvinist Dutch Reformed Church.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

Dudley full stop did more harm than good. Elizabeth was blessed with some very able ministers and commanders and was a brilliant woman herself but her taste in favourites was abysmal.
As to the OP I think it would weaken the cause of the rebels with more English support would come more English meddling and that would inevitably cause problems and divide the Dutch rebels which could only benefit the Hapsburgs. It also weakens the nationalist element as both options involve a foreign monarch ruling over the Netherlands. It could potentially cause religious disputes in both England and the low countries as moderate Elizabethan religious settlement is meaningfully different from the Calvinist Dutch Reformed Church.

Well the Dutch war of independence was mostly about religion and centralization. So as long as Elizabeth promises autonomy and religious freedom she already has an advantage over the spanish

 

[Thoresby]

Well the Dutch war of independence was mostly about religion and centralization. So as long as Elizabeth promises autonomy and religious freedom she already has an advantage over the spanish

Religious freedom is tricky as the Puritans will want them same in England and and autonomy is nice in practice but it's not a practical way to fight a war, which is why the States-General gradually accumulated more powers.

 

[ranichi17]

The problem I can see would be distance, because then Elizabeth would have to spend more on the navy to defend her hold on the Dutch lands, whereas the Habsburgs could easily send an army over land to invade.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

Religious freedom is tricky as the Puritans will want them same in England and and autonomy is nice in practice but it's not a practical way to fight a war, which is why the States-General gradually accumulated more powers.

Of course, but if you promise it, that can be enough. Doesn't mean it will be implemented

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

The problem I can see would be distance, because then Elizabeth would have to spend more on the navy to defend her hold on the Dutch lands, whereas the Habsburgs could easily send an army over land to invade.

That's fair. However, I assumed that as the Dutch won IOTL, that they should win ITTL with more support from the English

 

[Dolnikan]

That's fair. However, I assumed that as the Dutch won IOTL, that they should win ITTL with more support from the English

Yes, but it could easily be that they could gather less internal strength to do it, which in the end is much more important. Especially because there would be clashing interests as well.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

Yes, but it could easily be that they could gather less internal strength to do it, which in the end is much more important. Especially because there would be clashing

That's true. But let's say the revolt succeeds. The low lands, or those from the treaty of Utrecht, are part of the English crown. What now?

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

It could potentially cause religious disputes in both England and the low countries as moderate Elizabethan religious settlement is meaningfully different from the Calvinist Dutch Reformed Church.

Dudley did so much damage, because he tried to build his powerbase around the radical calvinists. He tried to rule through the Raad van State, a council he filled with those radicals. This alienated many moderates, mainly in the south and thus weakened the resistance and the unity. The later Republic became succesfull when the moderates were the dominant group again. They gave the radicals some bones. The calvinist church became the prefered religion of state, but it was never the religion of state. Something like the 1558 Recusancy act would have been absolutely impossible in the Republic.

 

[Dolnikan]

That's true. But let's say the revolt succeeds. The low lands, or those from the treaty of Utrecht, are part of the English crown. What now?

It will probably split up at some point over these clashing interests paired with religious differences. And even if it lasts a bit, things will really change when Elizabeth bites it. No one wants their country to be the secondary one after all.

 

[HJ Tulp]

That's true. But let's say the revolt succeeds. The low lands, or those from the treaty of Utrecht, are part of the English crown. What now?

Well they wouldn't be part of the English Crown, would it? They would be part of the lands of the Queen of England. That's an important difference.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

It will probably split up at some point over these clashing interests paired with religious differences. And even if it lasts a bit, things will really change when Elizabeth bites it. No one wants their country to be the secondary one after all.

Well, the Netherlands weren't really a country before the French Revolution. More like a weak federation. Plus it's more interesting to see what happens when Scotland, England and the Netherlands are united (Through the inheritance of James Stuart)

 

[Dolnikan]

Well, the Netherlands weren't really a country before the French Revolution. More like a weak federation. Plus it's more interesting to see what happens when Scotland, England and the Netherlands are united (Through the inheritance of James Stuart)

It's not so much about nationalism as it is about mercantile interests. And those of the English and Dutch merchants would clash, with all the fun that entails.

 

[Osman Aga]

So IOTL Queen Elizabeth was offered the Dutch crown, but she did not accept it.

According to Wikipedia she did not accept it because of her failed interventions in favour of the French protestants. But say she never intervened. And then accepted the Dutch crown. How would the Dutch was of independence play out? How would the thirty years was play out?

Philips II is pissed and acts more hostile to England in longer term. When Elizabeth dies, James I may abandon the Lowlands to avoid Spanish anger. That is if butterflies did not prevent a successful Armada.

 

[Osman Aga]

I could see the thirty years war playing out in favour of the Habsburgs. As the Spanish would not waste boat-loads of soldiers and cash on the low lands

Not really. If anything, the Spanish are more focussed on England/Lowlands, leaving Spanish troops less or none to help the Austrians. The Spanish had not really given up on the North until 1609 and even then it wasn't decided how much the Spanish would give up.