WI: William and Mary have a male Heir.

[JErosion]

Im sure its a question that has been asked before. But had William III and Mary II had a health male heir. Such a child would certainly rise to become the King of Great Britain, but would he be elected as the next Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic? And would the personal union that began under William continue until this...



becomes this



in the modern era.

The United Kingdoms of England, The Netherlands, Scotland and Ireland.

 

[pompejus]

Such a child would certainly rise to become the King of Great Britain, but would he be elected as the next Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic?

My gut feeling would be to say, yes, he would become stadholder. Mind you not stadholder of the Dutch republic, but of the 5 provinces Willem III had been stadholder (Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Overijssel, Gelderland and the non-province of Drenthe). Friesland and Groningen will probably keep their own stadholder.

And would the personal union that began under William continue until this...

becomes this

in the modern era.
The United Kingdoms of England, The Netherlands, Scotland and Ireland.

I would say no for a variety of reasons. First of all it was never a personal union. A stadholder is not a king. Agood stadholder can be the most influential person in the Netherlands, but isn't the most powerful one. In the end, even with a strong stadholder, the Netherlands was ruled by the regent upper class.

Secondly, as I mentioned before, Willem III wasn't stadholder over the Netherlands. There was no such thing. You could only be stadholder over a province (and Drenthe). So Willem III had only been stadholder over 5 of the 7 provinces (and Drenthe). To be fair, he was stadholder over Holland, the only province that truly mattered, but still that doesn't mean he ruled the Netherlands.

Thirdly, the stadholdership isn't hereditary. Although I do believe the son of
Willem III would probably become tadholder, I doubt this would continue. The royal house would become more and more English (like what happened to the Welsh Tudors and the Scotish Stewards) and the Dutch, especialy the Hollanders would not accept it. After a couple of generations (and my guess it would be after the grandson of Willem III) they wouldn't accept an English stadholder anymore.

In that case there are three options, either they would ask for the Frisian stadholder to become stadholder of (some of) the other provinces, they would ask the second brother of the king, to continue the line, or they decide they don't need a stadholder at all. I believe this is unavoidable (mind you, I believe it is possible that some of the provinces, like Gelderland, keep the English king as stadholder, but Holland wouldn't). To be fair, it is possible that the English won't accept it, sent an army and simply conquer the Netherlands, forcing their king upon them. In that case you can get a Anglo-Dutch personal Union. Although France would love it and certainly get involved somehow.

 

[alaninmcr]

Thirdly, the stadholdership isn't hereditary. Although I do believe the son of
Willem III would probably become tadholder, I doubt this would continue. The royal house would become more and more English (like what happened to the Welsh Tudors and the Scotish Stewards) and the Dutch, especialy the Hollanders would not accept it. After a couple of generations (and my guess it would be after the grandson of Willem III) they wouldn't accept an English stadholder anymore.

I think there could be joint/cooperating companies similar to the later Anglo-Dutch Shell, e.g. the Dutch East India Company collaborating with its smaller British colleague.

How much will the Dutch enjoy regaining access to North America?

If there is a lot of commercial joint ventures and colonial advantage, I could imagine that after several decades, Amsterdam and London would be seen as having far more in common than London and (say) York. So I don't think having an English stadholder need be that problematic for Holland.

For the other provinces, does it make that much difference to them if their absentee stadholder is in the Hague or London?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Im sure its a question that has been asked before. But had William III and Mary II had a health male heir. Such a child would certainly rise to become the King of Great Britain, but would he be elected as the next Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic? And would the personal union that began under William continue until the modern era.

The United Kingdoms of England, The Netherlands, Scotland and Ireland.

No. Nobody in the Netherlands wanted to be ruled from London. Nobody in Britain wanted to be ruled from Amsterdam.

The union of crown and office in the person of William was a temporary expedient, made because the English rebels wanted a strong candidate to replace James II, and because William and the Netherlands wanted England to change sides in the war against France.

The son of William and Mary would have been unquestioned heir to England, Scotland, and Ireland (assuming all Catholics are excluded as OTL); he would only be a candidate for the stadtholderships in the Netherlands, and probably not a strong one. William died only 24 years after his marriage, so *William IV would be a young man. He could campaign for the statholderships, but England would not support him - they would not want the complications of shared rule to continue.

It may matter how long William III lives; his horse stumbling on a mole's burrow is likely to be butterflied. The birth of *William IV could be any time from the marriage of William and Mary in 1677 to about 1702, when Mary would be 40. (It might happen after that, but such late births were rare.) If *William IV is born in say 1691, and William III dies in 1701 as OTL, *William IV is a boy of ten and will not be considered for the statholderships; they could be left empty as OTL, or go to an Orange cousin of William, such as Johann Friso.

The fact is, lasting unions of crowns are rare. They tend to occur only when the two realms are geographically connected: Castile-Aragon, Austria-Hungary, Poland-Lithuania, England-Scotland.

Others all crumbled: the Union of Kalmar, Austria-Spain, etc.

 

[avernite]

I am not as pessimistic as some, but all things considered, a split does seem most likely.

Of course, it should be noted the Stadholdership, apart from not being hereditary and not ruling absolutely, those same factors also make it a weak pawn. I could certainly see a third faction emerge in Dutch politics - the historical anti- and pro-Stadholder parties, and a party in favour of keeping a weak Stadholder in absentia in the form of the English King (who, by virtue of absence, would be relatively weak).

Now, I don't think such a party can win easily, but if the English crown is inherited father-to-single-son for a few generations, I could see it develop while the pro-Stadholder party slowly shifts to support for the Frisian branch of the Oranges.

Initially, such an absent stadholder doesn't change too much; England and the Netherlands were more or less allied from William III to the ARW. An absent Stadholder might still push a bit more activist Dutch government, which might see the Republic decline differently.

I don't believe the shape of Dutch decline can change - a Republic by and for the merchants/bankers was always going to decline when these got the chance to invest elsewhere AND profit off the state debt. I don't see a way to accelerate the decline into actual bankruptcy before the decline in economics due to the state debt and other factors made the Republic weak... Unless, somehow, a French war goes terribly wrong (the equivalent to the seven years war, or austrian succession, or...), the Dutch state has to borrow harder than is sustainable, and the government collapses similar to the eventual Patriot uprisings before the French Revolution (but, due to the war, the Anglo-Prussians don't prop up the Stadholderate as hard).

You could, from such a basis, MAYBE construe a very loose personal union, but it's gonna be hard...

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I think this is a complicated question. For one, it depends on when William dies and when this son was born. Mary had a miscarriage in early 1678 that basically rendered her barren, or close to sense her other potential miscarriages in late 1678, 1679 and 1680 are unconfirmed. So a son born in 1678 would be 10 when the Glorious revolution happened and 24 if his father dies on schedule. Young but not a baby like his father and Willems IV and V were.

The Dutch are going to be against the union continuing, that's pretty clear. However, I could see a second son being elected Stadtholder of William III's five provinces, with the help of his father/brother. Or, we could see something similar to Friesland in at least one of the provinces: the Stadtholdership being made hereditary. If that happens, I think we'd definitely see another Stadtholderless period, which would no doubt cool relations with Orangist England/Britain.

Really it depends on the power of William III and William IV when the Stadtholderships are being decided. If either are in a strong enough position, they might be able to force the States-General to make the later the former's successor. Of course this also depends on whether or not William IV is even interested in obtaining the Stadtholdership: he could easily chose to focus on the British isles and leave the Netherlands to its own devices.

 

[avernite]

Of course this also depends on whether or not William IV is even interested in obtaining the Stadtholdership: he could easily chose to focus on the British isles and leave the Netherlands to its own devices.

Or vice versa, of course. William III apparently didn't much like the English, or so some claim. A son who equally dislikes them might choose to stick to The Hague more... England was richer and more prestigious, but still only one of 3-4 realms ruled by the same person, with the Dutch pretty close in actual wealth/power.

 

[Janprimus]

Or vice versa, of course. William III apparently didn't much like the English, or so some claim. A son who equally dislikes them might choose to stick to The Hague more... England was richer and more prestigious, but still only one of 3-4 realms ruled by the same person, with the Dutch pretty close in actual wealth/power.

Well the English did invite him over to overthrow his father in law, but after he did just that, they were very reluctant to give him his reward i.e. the crown.
OTOH William III didn't like the Dutch regents much either, they had denied him his 'birth right' (the elected position of stadtholder); a joint attack from France, England, Sweden, Münster and Cologne in 'the disaster year' (het Rampjaar in Dutch) 1672 was needed to convince the estates of Holland (and Zeeland) to appoint him Stadtholder.
Still William III was a Dutchman, his son would eventually be mostly raised in the British Isles; I see Orange-Nassau (the Hollandic house of Orange-Nassau, not the later succeeding Frisian house of Orange-Nassau(-Dietz)) evolving a bit like the Hanoverians. However with a tenious hold on the Republic, apart from the dynastic possessions.

 

[Asami]

This may/may not help.