The Impossible Dream: How England and the Netherlands went from Talk of Union to War

[BananaLee]

It's that time again, when I write a random essay for school, think it's awesome, and submit it to the CFC World History Forums.

Today's offering is entitled: -

The Impossible Dream: How England and the United Provinces of the Netherlands Went from Talk of Confederation to the First Anglo-Dutch War

Enjoy the pdf and discuss.

 

[Masada]

Definitely one of your better written

 

[BananaLee]

It is my last essay for my undergrad ever

 

[RedRalph]

Great article, very well written and interesting!

 

[BananaLee]

Cheers, RRW. I think it helped that I had to read two of those long-winded pamphlets for a separate document analysis.

 

[Agent327]

A very nice read and pretty good article. Although I must say that in the light of the earlier failure to have an English monarch heading the revolting Dutch provinces (something which I came across when writing an article on why the 12 Year Armistice between Spain and the Dutch provinces led to a continuation of war rather than a definitive peace), to name but one example of earlier disagreement between the two nations, renders the English aspirations for a further political union beyond the personal one of Mary Stuart and William II as somewhat naive - especially in the light of the different views present, as pointed out by you. The affront facing the English deputation seems perfectly in line with other cases of orangist mobs, one of which was instigated to lynch the De Witt brothers. But I reckon that might fall beyond the scope of the subject here.

As a sidenote, I especially like your use of footnotes instead of separate notes, which greatly enhances readability.

 

[BananaLee]

the earlier failure to have an English monarch heading the revolting Dutch provinces

Yep. I haven't read too much about it but as I understood it, the reason why Old Bess pretty much said "f... no" when asked to be Queen of the Netherlands was her attempt to keep England out of confessional politics.
She was adamant for a good part of her reign of putting dynastic politics above all else - of course, things like Mary QoS and the Dutch revolt and strongly Protestant ministers sort of mucked that whole arrangement up.
Then again, what I know of the early stages of the Dutch revolt is mostly a potted history so I don't know too much about the details.

As a sidenote, I especially like your use of footnotes instead of separate notes, which greatly enhances readability.

Thanks. It's Department of History requirements because the university publishes the NZ Journal of History. I do agree it makes things much easier to track down sources and stuff

 

[BananaLee]

I actually just realised this isn't on the History Articles list. And t'was one of my better ones. Knight-Dragon!! (I didn't want to use the report function )

 

[Agent327]

Indeed. (Perhaps best send a PM.)

It seems I missed your earlier post:

Yep. I haven't read too much about it but as I understood it, the reason why Old Bess pretty much said "f... no" when asked to be Queen of the Netherlands was her attempt to keep England out of confessional politics.
She was adamant for a good part of her reign of putting dynastic politics above all else - of course, things like Mary QoS and the Dutch revolt and strongly Protestant ministers sort of mucked that whole arrangement up.
Then again, what I know of the early stages of the Dutch revolt is mostly a potted history so I don't know too much about the details.

I don't quite know what Old Bess had to do with it (not being familiar with Elizabeth's confessional policies), but there was a count of Leicester who was considered as head of state. It appeared however, I think, that the provincial States ultimately preferred decentralization to a central monarchy. I.e. they preferred a large degree of local independence - which was also, I think, part of the main reason of the revolt: direct interference (especially in religious matters) from Spain into the Netherlands; Philip II's concept of Catholic monarch differed greatly from his father, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Several remonstrances - official 'embassies of protest' - were met by clear rejection, after which matters further escalated into open civil war. (Although on both sides the religious issue took control eventually - even after the 1648 treaty the conquered provinves of 'State' Brabant and Limburg were governed centrally, which may have been wise if only because a large part of the Netherlands remained Catholic. Catholicism was allowed, but no more than that.)