Talk:Second Stadtholderless Period

Why an article?

The term Tweede Stadhouderloze Tijdperk (Second Stadtholderless Era) is a staple of 19th-century Dutch historiography. This in itself is no reason to write an article. However, there are already a number of links referring to it, most notably in the list of Dutch stadtholders and in the article on the First Stadtholderless Period, and in other articles (Dutch Republic, History of the Netherlands etc.) there are implicit referrals to this 45-year hiatus between the last stadtholder from the House of Orange, and the first "general stadtholder" (appointed in all provinces for the first time) from the "new" House of Orange-Nassau. I noticed that a number of articles and succession boxes tend to gloss over this 45-year hiatus, letting William IV follow directly after William III. I think this hiatus should be filled correctly, however.

The problem is how to do it properly? Unlike the First Stadtholderless Era the second one does not seem to be a well-defined entity (indeed, one may doubt if there would have been designated a "second" one, if there had not been a "first"). The only defining characteristic seems to be the absence of something, i.e. a functioning stadtholder in Holland and Zeeland, which lacuna seems to be taken as a personal insult by people of the Orangist persuasion (both contemporary and present-day). That absence seemed/seems to conflict with the Natural State of Things in which a representative of the House of Orange exercised monarchical pretensions, thereby presaging their royal successors, post-1815. But that is not enough reason to use it as an organizing principle in my personal view. However, many Dutch historians in the past (and maybe still) did see it as an adequate organizing principle, so who am I to quibble? :-)

So if the legitimization of an article lies in Dutch historiographical practice, how are we to structure it? Ipso facto we can not use the device of using the life of a stadtholder or king as a framing device, as is used for other subperiods of Dutch history. But maybe we can use the equivalent of a "cabinet period" as is used in contemporaneous British history (the Wallpole period coincides with the first part of the Era). Unfortunately from this point of view, the Dutch government did not have Cabinet government as yet (as under the Kingdom of the Netherlands). But maybe the Grand Pensionaries from the Era can be used as stand-ins for Prime Ministers (though that is decidedly not what they were) to help structure the narrative. I propose to limit the article to political history, though there may be digressions to economic and social/cultural history necessary.

I have given an outline and hope to fill this in the course of the next few days/weeks, depending on the time I can make free.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Finished the article. What I still need is an appropriate opening image :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is a political piece

When I read this article I was completely shocked by the bias of the contents. This article is a tragedy and should be rewritten or changed severely before it can stand up to any standard whatsoever. Daimanta (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the proof by some outtakes:

"The fact that giving dictatorial powers to a "strong man" is often impolitic, and usually leads to severe disappointment, was once again demonstrated in the aftermath of William IV's short stadtholderate."

Is giving dictatorial powers to a strong man a good idea then?--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy to spot

"Of course, anybody who had stood in the way of those stadtholders, like the representatives of the States Party, eminently fitted the role of "bad guys" in these romantic stories."

In my "historiographical note" I just point out (citing the eminent historian Schama) that the States Party regents often got a bad rap from partsisan Orangist Dutch historians with axes to grind. All in the interest of neutrality.--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy to spot

"Popular revolutions are seldom rational, of course, and the one that swept the Republic in April and May of 1747 was no exception."

Was the Orangist Revolution rational then? In the sense that the Dutch people exchanged a moderately corrupt States Party regime for a far more corrupt Orangist regime (which they certainly did not aim for when the revolution started)?--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy to spot

"This relatively innocuous invasion fully exposed the rottenness of the Dutch defenses, as if the French had driven a pen knife into a rotting windowsill."

Why the comparison?

Bad example of lack of neutrality. The States Party regime was certainly to blame for the unpreparedness of the Dutch defenses. So taking them to task is a mark of a nonpartisan standpoint.--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"he consequences were spectacular. The Dutch population, still mindfull of the French invasion in the Year of Disater of 1672, went into a state of blind panic (though the actual situation was far from desperate as it had been in that year). As in 1672 the people started clamoring for a restoration of the stadtholderate[51]. What exactly this was supposed to accomplish, has largely been left unexplained."

So what was the restoration of the stadtholderate supposed to accomplish then?--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Political opinion

"Interestingly, the hereditary stadtholderate removed all pretense that competence was a prerequisite for holding the stadtholder's office and the captaincy-general of the Union. This the Dutch people would soon come to regret."

In the history of the Republic the position of Stadtholder was always supposed to be held by a person of merit. For that reason the regents refused to appoint William III (a few weeks old at the time) to the office his father left vacant in 1650. The same argument not to appoint John William Friso was used in 1702. Once the stadtholderate was declared hereditary (even in the female line) competence was clearly no longer a relevant consideration. Isn't this a statement of fact?--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy to spot

"Interestingly, the unrest in Friesland was the first to exhibit a new phase in the revolution. There not only the regents were attacked but also the tax farmers."

Why is it so interesting?

If it is objectionable "interesting" could be deleted. It is just a fact that the first place the tax farmers were attacked was Friesland.--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"There now appeared to be two streams of protest going on. On the one hand Orangist agitators, orchestrated by Bentinck and the stadtholder's court, continued to opportunistically extort political concessions from the regents by judicially withholding troops to restore order, until their demands were met. On the other hand, there were more ideologically inspired agitators, like Rousset de Missy, who (quoting John Locke's Two Treatises on Government) tried to introduced dangerous ideas, like the ultimate sovereignty of the people as a justification for enlisting the support of the people."

Dangerous ideas? Who does the author think he is?

Irony often eludes some readers. Maybe I should have tried sarcasm? In any case "dangerous" could be placed between quotes.--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Consequently, the Orangist revolution of 1747-51 turned the Republic into what might be called a de facto "constitutional monarchy" without a crowned head (though the word "constitutional" seems a misnomer here), or less charitably, a near-dictatorship. Clearly such a dictatorship could only be justified, if at all, by the perceived dire straits the Republic was in, and if the dictatorial powers were quickly used to ameliorate the situation."

Talking about justification of an historical situation?

I like to call a spade a spade, and a dictator a dictator. The States Party regime surely was not a democracy, but if the Dutch people had hoped to get closer to a democratic form of state, they were sadly disappointed by the Orangist regime that they put in its place. This is not just my opinion, but the opnion of any historian worth his salt (including the ones I cite). Once William IV had obtained his dictatorial powers he did nothing with them. His successors used them to found one of the most corrupt regimes the Dutch had yet seen. Hence the popular discontent that led to the Patriot Revolt of the 1780s.--Ereunetes (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My conclusion: The people who wrote this had the intention to poison this entire article. I say shame on them and the people who enabled this kind of political showpiece. Daimanta (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I identified the Wikipedia grafiti artist on this article, namely Ereunetes. Since some of his work seems pretty ok I will not revert all his edits but any disturbances will be countered by a reversion on my side. I won't tolerate this behavior on my internet. Daimanta (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Daimanta seems to be Very Angry. Despite all the quotes given above, I wonder why. The objections seem to be directed against the section on the Orangist Revolution of 1747. Of course, if one is an ardent Orangist (two centuries after the fact), or is of the opinion that the results of that Revolution were solely beneficial one could disagree with some of the things I have written. But still I think the facts are correctly represented (and adequately referenced).

I wonder about the threat about "disturbances" being reverted. What "disturbances" does Diamanta have in mind? And which internet is exactly hers?--Ereunetes (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get my message. In this article you inserted your line of thinking into several sections. What if I claim that giving power to one person is a good thing to do, would you be satisfied with that? You would probably say that I inserted my opinion into this article. If this article was made by a dozen or so authors this could be explained as an organic change. This on the other hand is a person, namely you, pushing your view of the world into this article mixing it with facts. If you wanted to write an essay on the second stadtholderless period displaying your views on the situation this would not be a problem at all. But this is not your soapbox, seeWP:SOAP for more info about the subject if you'd like. If I read an article on wikipedia I want it to be informative, descriptive and most importantly neutral. That is the basis of Wikipedia. By adding your own political colour to the article you have made it your personal essay. Wikipedia is not inserting your idea about a strong man leading a nation or expressing satire because that's NOT what Wikipedia is for. And that pissed me off completely. Daimanta (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have purged the section on the Orangist Revolution of a number of the phrasings that were offensive to Daimanta. However, I doubt that will satisfy her. The facts of the case remain the same, and can be interpreted in a negative sense for the Stadtholder and his adherents. I stand by those facts and I think they are adequately referenced. As a matter of fact the article is one big excerpt of Jonathan Israel's "Dutch Republic" (as we are not supposed to provide "original work"). I did not make it up, in other words.

I sharpened one formulation that I owed to Israel, because I think it was unduly "mealy-mouthed." Israel likens the new regime after the Revolution to a "constitutional monarchy." He does this from politeness, not to offend the ardent Orangists still abroad in the Netherlands, but I think it is a complete misnomer. If one compares the new regime to a genuine "constitutional monarchy," like the contemporary reign of king George II of Great Britain, it is clear that the new regime lacked two essential characteristics of a true constitutional monarchy. In England the power of the king was legally counterbalanced by that of Parliament (on the basis of the Declaration of Rights) and of the courts (mostly by common law). Furthermore, Parliament formed a truly independent power center, which counterbalanced the king's power in political actuality also. In the new Dutch political situation the previously independent political power center of the self-ruling cities (and hence of the provincial States and States-General where they were represented) was completely emasculated by the regeringsreglementen that gave William the power to appoint regents to the city governments (effectively taking away home rule). It was as if the British king appointed all members of Parliament (instead of just the rotten boroughs). Without such a genuine political counterbalance the legal arrangements which still formally awarded "sovereignty" to the provincial States and the States General (and gave a distinctly non-monarchical status to the Stadtholder) became empty forms. Hence the shameful spectacle John Adams encountered in 1780 when he presented his diplomatic credentials to the President of the States General in the morning, and encountered the same gentleman as the Stadtholder's chamberlain when he made a courtesy visit to the Stadtholder William V in the afternoon. I have therefore deleted the word "constitutional" before "monarch."--Ereunetes (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Daimanta put a NPOV-tag on the article on September 8, 2008 (see previous section). I replied and edited the article so as to answer Daimanta's concerns. Daimanta did not react to these edits and did not withdraw the tag. We are the only two editors involved in this dispute. To break this impasse I am going to ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm not sure if there still is a dispute here. My suggestion is that you address how you've addressed Diamanta's concerns on the talk page and remove the NPOV tag. If Diamanta's concerns persist and he/she returns to explain why, then, assuming that you disagree with his/her concerns, there will be a dispute that can be addressed. (Since I haven't addressed the substance of your 3O request, I'm not removing the request. You should delete the entry if you agree with this.)? --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems an excellent suggestion. I'll remove both the NPOV-tag and my 3O-request. Thanks.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The British mercenaries at the siege of Quesnoy

The British general then withdrew his forces from the Allied camp and marched away with just the British soldiers (the mercenaries in British pay refused to take part in the blatant defection). Ironically, the French felt also hard done by, because they had expected all forces in British pay to disappear, thereby fatally weakening the forces of Prince Eugene.

Who were these mercenaries? Why did they stay? Did the British still pay them their full salary?

Top.Squark (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction: Who used the title "Prince of Orange"?

According to this article

All these claims and counter-claims set the stage for vigorous litigation, especially between Frederick of Prussia and Henriëtte Amalia van Anhalt-Dessau, the mother of John Wiliam Friso, as the latter was still a minor in 1702. This litigation was to go on for thirty years between the offspring of the two main claimants, until the matter was finally settled out of court with the Treaty of Partition between William IV, Prince of Orange, John William Friso's son, and Frederick William I of Prussia, Frederick's son, in 1732. Unfortunately, the latter had in the meantime ceded the principality of Orange to Louis XIV of France by one of the treaties, comprising the Peace of Utrecht (in exchange for Prussian territorial gains in Upper-Guelders[5]), thereby making the matter of succession to the title rather immaterial (the two claimants decided to henceforth both use the title).

However, we also find that

William IV came of age in 1729 ... he concluded the Treaty of Partition over the contested inheritance of the Prince of Orange with his rival Frederick William in 1732 (finally giving him the uncontested right to call himself Prince of Orange, and to refer to his House as Orange-Nassau)...

So, was William's right to use the title uncontested after the treaty, or did Frederick William continue using the title as well? Top.Squark (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In 1732, William and Frederick William agreed that they could both use the title of Prince of Orange. Before that, each claimed to be exclusive Prince of Orange and that the other's use of the title was illegitimate. john k (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. I clarified the text accordingly. Thx for the help! Top.Squark (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1730 Purge of Homosexuals.

http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm - Some 250+ men executed. Notable? Pär Larsson (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)