Un jour de grosse perte!
•
by Willem Drees
Dear Citizens,
Today is a historically important day that brought a lot of change for both the world and Europe. 204 years ago, Napoleon was defeated in Waterloo by a coalition of England, Prussia and, last but not least, the Netherlands.
With this we ensured that the French occupation of our country was over once and for all. But was the French occupation actually bad for our country?
Not in my eyes as a historian. we went from a democracy to an absolute monarchy. From a country with many liberties to a country with strict rules.
In my view, the loss of napoleon is not only a loss for France but also a loss for us as a free country where no king had reigned until William the 1st.
For this i want today to declare as a day of french and dutch friendship.
In addition, I want to start a referdum for the abolition of kingship in the Netherlands so that we can restore our country to its old state.
If you want to know more about the rl history of our country, please let me know!
Yours sincerely,
Koning der Zeeuwe
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Well get your history correct. The Dutch Republic (albeit not very ''democratic'') was an anomaly in history, while it was followed by a Napoleon family member being forced on NL (rea😛 absolute and reactionary monarchy) which concluded with even outright annexation into the ''French Empire''.. But that does not take away the stuff like the Code Napoleon of course o7
Hands up for the real first king of NL - ''Konijn'' Louis Bonaparte (and not William I) who despite being a foreigner cared for the Netherlands and was eventually removed by the true Napoleon for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Bonaparte
That Lodewijk Napoleon Bonaparte is the first king of the Netherlands, you are indeed right, but he is also a much better king if you compare him to Willem 1. However, the reason I do not appoint him as the first king is because our history books do not. Although I have to tell you that he is indeed this.
The Dutch republic is indeed an oddity, but if you compare it to a present-day democracy, that is indeed quite difficult. You can best compare this Dutch republic with an oliggian state in which the normal man still has a lot of say (city council, water boards, trade organizations) In addition, many things such as freedom of expression and freedom of belief were certainly on the order within the republic. The biggest problem within the republic was the title of the stadholder, who was hereditary and usually brought along many problems. It is not for nothing that the stadholderless eras of the republic was the best time. In addition, it was not for nothing that napoleon had put his brother forward as king of our country. First, Stadtholder Willem V demanded more and more power as governor of the Republic and did not want to implement important reforms, which led to a civil war between the patriots (people for reforms) and the prince (people against reforms).
This civil war was lost by the patriots, as a result of which they flee to France and, after the French Revolution, took over our country with the French. This acquisition made for the most democratic country that the Netherlands has ever been. The Batavian republic. However, just like France, this republic had structural problems for Napoleon. After Napoleon seized power, he took over the Netherlands without much trouble (the Batavian republic was actually a vassal state of France).
He then brought his brother forward as king something we last had in the year 1598.
After his brother had not met the requirements of napoleon, the netherlands was indeed taken over by napoleon himself as an extra province with the same rights as brittany.
So this article suggests being occupied by foreign country makes you more free than having a monarchy?
Okay then.
Janty F no it's about the change our country from a republic where citizens had some say. To a republic where there was a lot of participation. To a country where the citizen had nothing to say anymore and was ruled by a man who not only wanted to be king of our country but of both Belgium and France.
The whole world is small and too small, and two meters are long and wide
The French revolution brought a lot of great new liberties and ideas to Europe, but Napoleon did not follow these ideas at all. His defeat at Waterloo was a good thing in my opinion, without it we all would have spoken French now (quelle horreur)...
but without Napoleon, the time of terror under Robespiere never came to an end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terreur_(French_Revolution)
That's true indeed. I guess every bad-guy has some good moments
I don't agree that our current monarchy is a bad thing. The king basically has no power, and has to stay out of politics. So the biggest downside of our monarchy is purely financial.
What we get back though, is imho a lot more. The fact that we celebrate his birthday together unites us as a people. And also internationally having a king to represent our country is quite convenient. It gives stature to trade missions, and attracts people to them, ultimately making them more successful. Ultimately, I think our monarchy earns us more than it costs us...
Regarding restoring NL back to its old state. We've had a lot of great periods of very limited democracy in the past... It's never been as democratic as a few years ago when we still had referendums. I think our constitutional monarchy is working quite well, definitely compared to what we really had in the time period you are talking about...
What is essential for a properly operating democracy is open access to information, and proper education for all voters. The first was not great in the time you're discussing, and the second was solved by giving very few people the right to influence decisions... Calling it a democracy is not true in the sense that the common people had any power.
it is indeed true that after 1848 the state became more democratic than it was during the republic, but I want to tell you that the constitution that we now have in RL Netherlands is even less democratic than it was during the time of the Batavian republic.
What makes a constitution democratic? Not even mentioning that women cannot vote, because it is obvious? Only allowing people in certain functions when they are over 30 years old, which considering the life expectancy in those days was a respectable age that quite a lot of people didn't even reach? Or not allowing people to be in openly in favour of the old system of the Stadhouders, aristocracy, etc. Clearly no freedom of speech in that constitution...
Many of the important aspects of that constitution have been copied to our current constitution, for example the division of the three powers. But in your opinion, what makes the Batavian republic's constitution so democratic compared to our current constitution? And what about the French constitution? That Batavian Republic's constitution was clearly modeled on the French constitution at the time.
the constitution of the Batavian republic stated universal electoral law (indeed unfortunately not for women) separation of powers & freedom of opinion and belief. It is indeed true that people who praised opinions that were positive from the stadholder were punished and prosecuted. I also have to tell you that the population of our country was certainly not stupid. in the republic the complacency was over 80%, so that almost everyone knew something about the situation in the country. A good example is the amount of pan flats and books that were read in the republic.
Conclusion was it all right? Certainly not, but the time was surely a time when some changes would come back much later.
One name: Johan van Oldebarnevelt.* The best stadhouder ever! During his reign our country was truely at it's best.
Jan van Oldenbarnevelt was not a stadholder but the raadpensionaris. Maurits was stadhouder in his time and he killed van oldenbarnevelt.
So you rather had been a province of France , than an sovereign country....... coz we would've had the same influence as we do now in the european union..... and that is not that much .....
I'm glad it went how it went...... look at what the french did to fokker & now to klm.......... they drain the funds and slowly kill the company.
It supposed to be a merger .....but its nothing short of a hostile takeover ......
to be a province of france was certainly not the goal in the article but if you look at how far we go back in time in the style of how our country was ruled it was true that we went behind. until 1917.
I certainly do not say that it would have been good for us as a country to be a province of france, but what I mean to say with the article is that we certainly know the story of the orange family and defeating napoleon and the offenses that have been around this time. However, what we sometimes forget is that this time also had positive changes.
My question is a bit off-topic (earlier than the Napoleonic era), but I am quite interested on your opinion of Johan de Witt (well, Cornelius also) and his role in the history of the Netherlands.
Nice question! about what would you like to know my opinion about the de witt brothers? Their policy they stood for or the well-known lynch on them.
Mostly on the de Witt policies. I was curious on the opinion of rl dutch people on the period of the de Witt dominance. As a historian you should have somewhat objective view on that period, and not be too influenced by popular culture and the lynch at the end.
I have already talked with rl dutch friends on Michiel de Ruyter and the opinions are quite controversial and often different of what I expected.
PS: ok, one question on the lynch, though. Do you think it was artificially inflated to the point of mutilation/cannibalism or the mob actually hated them that much?