Talk:Politics and government of the Dutch Republic

Questions

1. Dutch Republic is in essence a federation rather than confederation. 2. There are 12 members of Raad van State in total; however I only counted 11 in the article, where is the remaining one ?

Siyac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyac (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this. you count correct. I had forgotten Gelderland. The Prince of Orange didn't count toward the 12. So I updated per the ref by Sir Wm. Temple and that brings it up to 13. Thanks for comments!

Confederation vs. Federation is a difficult matter, as it had elements of both. You can rationally come down on either side. In the latin (see Dutch Republic), Johan de Witt was very specific about using the latin for Federation. You can take that as official government policy mid-1600s.

JMvanDijk (talk)

Correspondence

Whoever put in the subheadings under the national government section thanks! It looks much neater.

JMvanDijk (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.249.228 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Government of the other provinces

This section says: The province had its own language, Frisian, more akin to old English than to Dutch. This is doubtful. Furthermore, there are articles West Frisian language and Frisian languages.Sarcelles (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Insufficient attention to political "waves" in history

With the possible exception of the office of stadtholder the history of the Dutch Republic is sketched in a way that is too static. For instance, the Council of State was a very different animal in the days of William the Silent than after Johan van Oldenbarnevelt had finished emasculating it. Foreign observers always remarked how much better the Dutch institutions would have functioned if the Council of State had been a "true executive" as it was under the Habsburgs, and in the years between the Pacification of Ghent and 1588, when Leicester was driven out. For instance I recently read about an unsolicited scheme for constitutional reform by Pierre Jeannin, the French diplomat who helped negotiate the Twelve Years' Truce, that would have restored the old position of the Council of State (with anex officio seat for the French ambassador, of course). And one finds this a recurring theme in the history of the Republic. But (as Jonathan Israel describes) Oldenbarnevelt made sure most of those old executive powers were transferred to the States General in the years following 1588, because under the Treaty of Nonesuch two members (later one) of the Council were appointed by the English Crown (this arrangement only ended when the loans that treaty provided for, had been paid off). Another example is the States General themselves. In the years between 1576 and 1585 it was the States General that appointed the stadtholders (for instance George de Lalaing, Count of Rennenberg was appointed by the States General). Wiliam the Silent had still been appointed by the Habsburg Governess General and he simply "returned to his post" in 1572; all it took was the rebel States of Holland "recognizing" him as the legitimate stadtholder. All of this changed with the appointment of Maurice and William Louis just before Leicester (who would normally have handled the appointment) by the States of Holland and Friesland. After that all stadtholders were appointed by the States of their provinces, not by the States General. And it remained an appointive office, even when it was made "hereditary" after 1747. Stadtholder William V was still appointed in 1766 and received an Instruction, despite the fact that the office had become hereditary. The relationship between the States General and the States of the provinces is described as it became after the coup d'etat by Maurice of 1618 and the Trial of Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius and Hogerbeets of 1619. Before that (i.e. beween 1588, with the Deductie of François Vranck, and said coup of 1619-19) the provincial States were supreme and the power of external defense and foreign affairs had just been "delegated" to it (under art. I of the Union of Utrecht), without a concomitant transfer of residual sovereignty to the States General. This changed with the trial of Oldenbarnevelt c.s. at the same time as the interpretation of art. XIII of the Union treaty, which on its face gave exclusive powers to regulate religion to the provincial States, without interference by other provinces, let alone the States General. The most important "wave movement" was of course the position of the provincial stadtholder, which fluctuated from that of barely tolerated nitwit, as Maurice under Oldenbarnevelt before his fall, to de facto dictator of the Republic as Maurice after 1618, and his successors, until the death of William II, and the introduction of the First stadtholderless period, when the entire office was "permanently" abolished (except in Friesland). This was followed by the "first Orange restoration" of 1672, when William II got the dictatorial powers back. But in 1702 there was the Second Stadtholderless Period until we had the "second Orange restoration" unifying all stadtholderships in the one hand of William IV, again with dictatorial powers. As he died soon, and the Orangist party was strong enough to keep hold of the reins, this was followed by a long period of misrule by the entourage of William V; the Patriot Revolt of 1785-87 (another nadir for the stadtholderate); the "third Orangist restoration", this time with Prussian help of 1787; followed by a short period of true dictatorship by Wiliam V himself, until he was chased away in 1795. In short, one cannot describe this as a monolith; the stadtholderate changed unrecognisably a few times, and back again, so one should always give the context. And in the context of this critique of the article: it gives the impression that the stadtholderate was somehow linked to the title of Prince of Orange, while all there was to it, was that there was a kind of "personal union" in the five provinces that Maurice had been appointed in. Formally, there was no relationship, and in Friesland there always was a member of the cadet branch of Nassau-Dietz, in the office of stadtholder until that branch inherited the title of Prince of Orange. I think the article certainly has its merits, but it could be improved upon in terms of these criticisms. I think Israel's book is the best source to use, as most of the other sources (the 1668 biased description by the English ambassador is a prime example) are simply too old to still use.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)