Would Anglo-Dutch Union have changed World Geopolitics?

I have toyed with a number of possible Anglo-Continental Unions, such as Denmark from Queen Anne, Sweden or Prussia. The most probable union would be Anglo-Dutch which did happen in 1688, and was all set to continue if William and Mary had had an heir.

While it is interesting to speculate how this might have changed English and Dutch culture, in the big stream of History, IDK if I see it making all that big a difference. The main affect would be to make Britain more of a continental power, but preventing France from dominating the Low Countries was the lynchpin of British foreign policy in OTL anyway.

The UK and Dutch were generally allies after 1688, the only exception being the American Revolution. The UK would have had a slight boost with the power of the Dutch navy with it and not against it, but I doubt it would have turned the tide of the American Revolutionary War. Assuming Britain ruled the Netherlands with a light hand, with constitutional liberalism, I don't see a strong anti-English movement. And in a way it is the House of Orange ruling UK rather than vice versa.

Perhaps the French Revolutionary armies would support a Republican anti-English revolt during its war. And a Napoleonic Kingdom might have been set up as in OTL.

Do you see this as changing history in any important way? Granted it makes Britain more powerful with the 2 largest navies in Europe combined, but UK naval dominance was never really challenged, except briefly in 1778. It adds a few Dutch colonies to the British Empire.

But I don't really see it changing much of the course of European and World history. The French Wars, WW1, WW2, European Integration, proceed basically as they did in OTL. The only main difference is the closer cultural, socioeconomic and linguistic ties. Today Holland has the largest English speaking population percentage of any non-Anglo country. And Dutch and English are the closest relatives, combining West Friesian with a French-Latin influence. And they were even closer in 1688, so its possible they could have merged into a single language.

But as far as geopolitics goes, I don't see it changing the general trends all that much. Perhaps it could have blunted the German invasions in 1914 and 1940 slightly.
 
I've thought about this too. And what if the union became one country? The navy would've been unbeatable, that's for sure. However, my biggest question would be: after a few generations Dutch and English would've become one language, mostly still English but with slightly more Dutch influence, but what would the country's name be? It wouldn't be England (The United Provinces probably wanted their name represented too) or Great Britain (The United Provinces were not part of Britain) or The United Kingdoms (a union and not two merged countries), so what WOULD it be called? That's my biggest question.
 
The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Belgium sounds like a good name. Also I doubt this would extinguish the Dutch language, it's likely enough the Union would see the Dutch as autonomous in many respects.
 
There are a couple of things you have to realise about the Anglo-Dutch personal union under king/stadholder William III.

First of all is that it never was a true personal union. For one thing, William III was only stadholder of part of the Netherlands. Groningen and Friesland had a different stadholder; Dutch Brabant, Overmaas, Flanders and Gelders Overkwartier had no stadholder at all, being generality lands and were ruled but the estate-Genaral directly. Furthermore, a stadholder was not the Dutch equvalent of a king. A stadholder in the Netherlands was a lot less powerful than a king. A good stadholder (like Willem III) could be very influential, but weak stadholders could simply be ignored (like Willem V). Actualy, there were too times when many provinces in the Netherlands (like Holland, the most/only important one) did not even have a stadholder, for example the years before and after Willem III was stadholder. Also the office of stadholder was not hereditary (at least in the days of Willem III it wasn't). This meant that when Willem III died leaving no children, if the office of stadholder was hereditary the ruler of Brandenburg would have become stadholder of the Netherlands (like he inherited the titles of Lingen, Moers and Orange (sort of)), but this never came up. Willem III wanted the Frisian stadholder to become his successor. He did not become stadholder of Holland (etc), because the Estate-General decided they could do without him.

Also, a personal union does not mean a union between two countries. See for example the personal union between Britain and Hanover. Both were ruled more or less independently of each other (although there was some overlap) and when Victoria became queen the two countries split because of different succession rules. This is especialy relevant in this case, since when the line descending from William III dies out in the male line, the personal union will end.

Considering all this, I can only conclude that in case William III has any children, which I assume is the POD, this will not automaticaly mean that the "personal union" continues. I realy doubt the Dutch want to be ruled by England. I could see it continue for a while, maybe one or two generations, depending on how the English kings treat the Netherlands, but after a while the Dutch, certainly Holland, will apoint someone else (maybe a brother of the king) as stadholder. Actualy I could see the situation in which the English king is only stadholder over one or two provinces (like Gelderland and perhaps Overijssel).

Floc's timeline about a continued union between the Netherlands and Britain is great, but in my opinion not a realistic depiction of such a situation.
 
(cut for length)

What he said. It would probably last another generation, but the Dutch would soon be getting the (correct) impression that they were playing second fiddle. they'd elect a separate Stadtholder, ending the already tenuous union and going their own way.
 
It was my understanding historically, that over the 18th century, the Republican institutions of Holland were gradually diminished, as the House of Orange became more and more of a conservative, monarchical force, culminating in their enthronement after 1815 in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This lead to the rise of the liberal Patriot faction that sided with the French Revolution.

Perhaps with the House of Orange, ruling as a Whig Constitutional Monarchy across the Channel, they could afford to be more light-handed in ruling the Netherlands. Perhaps with a lesser Prince ruling as de facto governor or even having elected Cabinets, separate but equal, similar to the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy. The unifying factor would be Protestantism and constitutional institutions against the Catholic Absolutism of France. With relatively liberal rule, and respect for Dutch commercial interests, I don't necessarily see British Union as more onerous than the centralization of the House of Orange in OTL. But there is the nationalist element, which could lead to a stronger Patriot pro-French Republican faction than in OTL.
 
The power of the French army on land to occupy the Netherlands would be a problem. A united polity would most probably have to spend large sums of money to maintain a standing army large enough to deter the French, and even this wouldn't be enough in the late 1700s. I imagine this would put a strain on any union.
 
But I don't really see it changing much of the course of European and World history. The French Wars, WW1, WW2, European Integration, proceed basically as they did in OTL.

Surely, such a change would butterfly all those events?
 
The power of the French army on land to occupy the Netherlands would be a problem. A united polity would most probably have to spend large sums of money to maintain a standing army large enough to deter the French, and even this wouldn't be enough in the late 1700s. I imagine this would put a strain on any union.

France and the Netherlands don't share a border, so you'd get an expanded version of what we had in OTL of keeping the Hapsburg Netherlands out of France's hands, the expense of which you are exaggerating. The union doesn't make France's other enemies disappear, nor does it give France an easy way to strike at Britain/Netherlands without bringing in other enemies.
 
Last edited:
Surely, such a change would butterfly all those events?

I agree a personal union between England and the Dutch would change policy of France, considerations about the English having a hold on the continent in a different place. It changes everything. Different France, different Germany, different British Empire (if at all) different everything.

I mean it's over three hundred years of history. This is a huge point of divergence. WWI and WWII totally different if they happen, Europe would be totally different, all the figures we know, never born.
 
I agree a personal union between England and the Dutch would change policy of France, considerations about the English having a hold on the continent in a different place. It changes everything. Different France, different Germany, different British Empire (if at all) different everything.

I mean it's over three hundred years of history. This is a huge point of divergence. WWI and WWII totally different if they happen, Europe would be totally different, all the figures we know, never born.
or they would be born, just doing something entirely different.
Franco's battalion being outrun by Fascists and his execution along with the Communists during the Spanish Civil War, whatnot.
 
or they would be born, just doing something entirely different.
Franco's battalion being outrun by Fascists and his execution along with the Communists during the Spanish Civil War, whatnot.

I think that of all things to get butterflied, I think people existing is a big one. I mean there is such a specific set of circumstances to create a person on a biological level. I mean hell, to put it in perspective, Hitler's dad stubs his toe the day he was banging Mrs Hitler, and is like a minute late coming into the room, different sperm hits the egg (or not at all) just like that no Hitler. Apply that across centuries and bam, the entire population of earth probably is completely different.

...this is a weird statement.
 
I think that of all things to get butterflied, I think people existing is a big one. I mean there is such a specific set of circumstances to create a person on a biological level. I mean hell, to put it in perspective, Hitler's dad stubs his toe the day he was banging Mrs Hitler, and is like a minute late coming into the room, different sperm hits the egg (or not at all) just like that no Hitler. Apply that across centuries and bam, the entire population of earth probably is completely different.

...this is a weird statement.

Shall I dub thee Alex1 "Banging Mrs. Hitler" Guy?
 
Top