William III Question

I had a great William III dream, but have a few questions before I would attempt to make anything of it

I see that his cousin William IV became Stadtholder in the Netherlands - is this because William III was childless, or was it basically elective and they chose him as the nearest relative?

If William III had a son, would they have still have looked to have separated the crowns?

Luxembourg at this time appears to have been somewhat in flux, could Britain or the Netherlands have claimed or bought it from the Habsburgs?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I had a great William III dream, but have a few questions before I would attempt to make anything of it

I see that his cousin William IV became Stadtholder in the Netherlands - is this because William III was childless, or was it basically elective and they chose him as the nearest relative?
The thing you need to realise about the stadholdership is that it is not the same thing as a monarchy. For example, in the time of William III there was no stadholder of the Netherlands. There were only stadholders of the seven provinces (and Drenthe). William III for example was only stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland, Overijssel and Drenthe. Someone else was stadholder of the remaining two provinces Friesland and Groningen. Still, because William III was stadholder of the most important province (Holland) he was the most important stadholder in the Netherlands. Stadholders were basicly appointed by the provinces and in theory everyone could become stadholder, but it became basicly tradition to appoint the nearest relative of the former stadholder, like William II who became stadholder after his father stadholder Frederik Hendrik died.

To complicate it though, you have to remember that many of the people who ruled Holland (and some other provinces), the regents (usualy rich merchants), prefered not to have a stadholder. Even though the stadholder was technically not powerful, he usualy was very influential and the regents prefered to rule themselves. So when Willem II (the father of William III) died, when his only son was still very young, the regents decided they did not need a stadholder. So William III had not been stadholder for the first couple of years of his life. Only when the regents screwed up (at least in the eyes of the people) during the year of disaster, when the Netherlands was attacked by France, England, Cologne and Münster, William III was appointed stadholder, hoping he could safe the country (he was).

So when William III died without children there was no clear successor to him. William III appointed his (relatively distant) relative, the stadholder of Friesland and Groningen, as his successor, but the regents prefered not to have a stadholder. So there was a second stadholderless era, until during a war the people wanted William IV, current stadholder of Friesland and Groningen as stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, etc. Only from that point the stadholdership was hereditary and the stadholder was stadholder of all provinces.

BTW The Frisian stadholder was not the closest relative of William III, that would have been the ruler of Brandenburg/Prussia.


If William III had a son, would they have still have looked to have separated the crowns?
It depends on the age of the son. Personaly, my guess would be that the "personal union" (which was not an actual personal union) would have continued, at least for a while. I think at one point the regents would have enough of the English kings and appoint someone else as stadholder. Although, if the king of England spends his time in England and leaves the Netherlands alone, they might be happy anyway.

Luxembourg at this time appears to have been somewhat in flux, could Britain or the Netherlands have claimed or bought it from the Habsburgs?
As far as I know Luxemburg was just part of the Southern Netherlands, not that different from Flanders or Namur. I see no reason why the Netherlands or Britain could claim it. They could buy it of course, but why? There are better parts of the Souther Netherlands to buy.
 
The Habsburgs seem to have been willing to trade the Netherlands for other gains elsewhere if they felt it to their advantage, so maybe its a small advantage and Lux is the only price they would pay?

How formal was Habsburg rule til the Treaty of Utrecht?

Lol, this is all unchartered territory for me, no idea why I dreamt all this!

So, the people of the Dutch provinces could have rejected an imposed stadtholder they felt was not in their interests? Or could have pressed for someone different from the new King of England?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
So, the people of the Dutch provinces could have rejected an imposed stadtholder they felt was not in their interests? Or could have pressed for someone different from the new King of England?
Kind of, sort of. The situation was complex. You can basicly summerise the Dutch political history from the middle of the eighty year war up until the Batavian Republic in the age of Napoleon by saying that it was a powerstruggle between the Stadholders and the regents (the ruling merchant class). At some points the stadholders were stronger (during William III for example) and sometimes the regents (during the stadholderless eras before and after William III for example). When a stadholder was more influential than the regents he could impose his will on them (although not completely, he was not a king). If William III has an adult son , I believe that the regents will not refuse him as stadholder. They basicly need a void of power to do that. There were a lot of people who supported the stadholders after all (including the common people). So if the succession is clear, they more or less can't refuse it, especialy considering the stadholders controlled the army. There is also the possibility they could rebel. They did when Willem II was stadholder. That rebellion was even succesful, although in my opinion only because Willem II died unexpectedly and his son (William III) was only a baby.

So, no they can't realy refuse it, although they actualy could refuse it. If the potential stadholder holds enough power and influence, he will become stadholder. That said, I think it perfectly possible for a king of England to delegate the stadholdership to other people (like the Frisian stadholder) and only hold the stadholdership of Holland (the only one that realy matters) or simply leave the Dutch be and becoming just a symbolic stadholder.

Basicly, just tell me what you want to happen and I can make a guess if it is something I think will happen and others can tell you why I am wrong.
 
Thank you!

It was all based on a dream :)

It was set in the late 18th century, with William III's grandson, King Augustus on the British throne and personally leading his troops into battle. His cousin reigned as Stadholdter in the Netherlands, but was deformed and retarded and his mother, or sister, was Regent for him. Augustus dreamed of uniting the three branches of the Orange dynasty into one, one of which ahistorically was Luxembourg in this alternate reality, ruled by a sidereal descendant of William III.

Augustus fighting in the Netherlands, to assert his claim, fell into a sewer in the midst of battle and was presumed lost, but the hearty men of his personal guard stripped half-naked and dragged him out, laughing and high-fiving each other and the king as they rescued him. Suitably cleaned up, Augustus entered the Dutch capital (presumably Amsterdam but could have been The Hague, not specified in the dream).

He confronted the distant cousin ruling as Stadtholder, and the poor guy could barely speak due to his deformity. Augustus persuaded his regent to get the guy to abdicate in his favour, winning her over by playing up the cousin role. Later, he also got his closer cousin in Luxembourg to also abdicate for him, uniting the three territories and crowns in himself


As in all dreams, the actuality of the events was vague to say the least!

I know what you mean about stadtholders being per province rather than for the whole of the United Provinces, but also that at the same time if you held most you were viewed as being in control of the whole nation, so here yeah maybe William III's son takes the route you suggest

Down the line, his grandson is of a different mind, and late 18th century many things can have changed

I wonder what the British crown could have offered the Austrians to get Luxembourg for a scion? Maybe to allow the Antwerp Co equal access/competition or it could be as simple as a territorial concession somewhere, maybe Africa?

Best regards
Grey Wolf
 
Something I could see is another branch being stadholders. It probably is something the Dutch would prefer and since the power of the stadholder depends on his influence in the Netherlands, an English stadholder would probably have not much power in the Netherlands. So splitting the line makes some sense. Actualy, I believe this probably would happen. If you throw in a royal marriage with the Frisian stadholder (who through butterflies only have daughters), it makes for a reasonable scenario.

The problem though is the handicapped stadholder. As I said in such a case it is more likely that the regents would not appoint a stadholder. But, there is a way out. OTL the stadholdership was made hereditary after the second stadholderless period. This could have happened here, especialy if the Frisian and the Hollandic branch united somehow. Of course this can only happen before it would be clear that the successor was handicapped.
 
Remember that the English were deeply unhappy about the joint rule idea. The Scots even more so. Even Queen Ann, whose proud boast was that she was 'mere English', could not stop the Scots passing the Act of Security, and only stopped it coming into effect by bribing the Scots into the Union. I can't see the Union happening under a 'half king'. Probably the great beneficiary of a continued Williamite line would be the lawful King.

Admitting the Antwerp company to the Eastern trade is ASB, Parliament would never have agreed. Nothing English in Africa to give at this period, Cape was Dutch. And I think the idea of England being lumbered with Luxembourg would be the Country Party's worst nightmare. Why on earth would England want to be saddled with Luxembourg of all places?
 
Regarding Luxembourg, it was always a strategic fortress, I think that's what it owed its existence to as a state?

Wars with France are not uncommon in this period, so having Lux as a friendly ally (not annexed but with a duke who is of the dynasty) would make sense

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Regarding Luxembourg, it was always a strategic fortress, I think that's what it owed its existence to as a state?

Wars with France are not uncommon in this period, so having Lux as a friendly ally (not annexed but with a duke who is of the dynasty) would make sense

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

OK you do know how unrealistic it is to have an independent Luxembourg, let alone one held by the Stuart-Oranges, right? Luxembourg was a major fortress yes but besides that it would be a pain in the ass. Its not a coastal territory like Calais or Dunkirk so it would be difficult to reenforce. Its not a major port like Antwerp or Ghent so no economic incentive. Luxembourg would have to be garrisoned by someone, most likely the British, so that's an unwanted Continental obligation. Parliament's not gonna pay for something like that. Even with its own Duke it would be an unwanted problem for England. Having one branch in England and another in the Netherlands is fine and realistic. Having a third in Luxembourg isn't gonna fly.
 
but it became basicly tradition to appoint the nearest relative of the former stadholder, like William II who became stadholder after his father stadholder Frederik Hendrik died.

Wasn't William II also Frederik Hendrik's successor (that should really be either Willem II and Frederik Hendrik or William II and Frederick Henry, in my opinion - consistency is important) because Frederik Hendrik made the Estates of the provinces he ruled swear the Act of Survivance (1631), which made them pledge loyalty to Willem II as his heir, not just because of tradition? (And had he lived, Willem II would have probably have tried the same thing for his son, if he could)
 
Top