Religion and Religious Matters of the Dutch RF


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Bones

Nobility
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
455
City
Laredo
Country
United States
I've not been able to find out in my poking around if the Bonaparte King Louis of Holland remained Catholic as monarch? I assume that if he did he was the only Catholic monarch the Dutch have had (since independence from Spain of course). Also, what exactly are the laws about religion and marriage with the Dutch monarchy? I know the parliament has to approve all marriages but is there a law about the monarch having to be a member of a certain church (Dutch Reformed?) and are there any laws against Orange royals marrying Catholics and keeping their royal rights like in Great Britain? I know some did and it did not make them very popular but I could never find out if this changed anything legally for them.

King Louis also interests me in general. It seems rather out of the ordinary that an imposed foreign monarch would become so popular and so identify with his own people that he would oppose his own family over it.
 
Cher Louis remained a catholic.There are no laws saying a Monarch has to be this or that denomination,
but tradition has it that the Oranges are protestant.

This is not Britain.The Heir,Alexander is married to a catholic Maxima,
Prince Maurits married a catholic Princess Marilene and they are still in line until Alexander takes over.
We don't take to way out of time medieval rules and regulations regarding faith and our Monarchy.

Louis Napoleon already has his own thread here.:)
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly aware the Netherlands are not Britain, the Dutch have long been known for greater religious tolerance but there were once similar laws against Catholics which is why I asked the question about what exactly the laws are. So, the decision of the Prince of Orange and Maxima to raise their children Protestant was totally their own decision and had no bearing on their future and the throne?

I ask because the others are not in direct line of succession. I was not sure if this happened on its own or if there is a block against a future King or Queen of the Netherlands being Catholic.

I did notice the other thread on Louis but as it directs to the French board and my primary question concerned the Netherlands I posted it here. If I erred, have some mercy on a new member :)
 
I am not sure how liberal the religious views were in 1800, I suppose that the Dutch did not have any other choice than to accept a catholic king, since they were in no position to refuse him. Though Holland was indeed more tolertant than other countries in religion the tolerance is usually somewhat overrated, one of the reason of the split between the north and the south in 1830 for example was that the north was afraid to be ruled by catholics.

-
Since the question relates to two topics I will do the following:
1) - Copy the posts to the thread on Louis Bonaparte in the Bonaparte subforum.
2) - Rename this thread 'Religion & religious matters of the Dutch RF'.
 
Religious matters had its restrictions here since the Reformation.Catholics could have their masses,but fe couldn't be a member of parliament.Until the early 1870's catholics were more or less discriminated and it wasn't till then that the Roman Catholic Church in
The Netherlands was allowed to appoint a bishop and install a bishopric in The Netherlands.First time in almost 300 years.

At that time it would have been impossible to any of our Royals to marry a catholic,the majority here being protestant,reformed and
holyer then thou,God fearing and proclaiming hell and damnation,(how very christian...) would have caused nothing short of a revolution here.
 
Cher Louis remained a catholic.There are no laws saying a Monarch has to be this or that denomination,
but tradition has it that the Oranges are protestant.

This is not Britain.The Heir,Alexander is married to a catholic Maxima,
Prince Maurits married a catholic Princess Marilene and they are still in line until Alexander takes over.
We don't take to way out of time medieval rules and regulations regarding faith and our Monarchy.

Exactly, while the expectation would be that the monarch and his family are protestant - and in practice, there is only one party in parliament vehemently opposed to Catholic brides -, that is not a formal requirement.

Friso and Mabel (although no longer in the line of succession) made it a point to state that while their daughters were baptized they were not registered as members of a specific church (and the ceremony took place at the Palace) because they wanted their daughters to pick one themselves... Imho a little weird to baptize them without an expectation to raise them in a certain way but that's for them and the one who christened both countesses to account for. At that time, it was also considered a bit problematic by church jurists... (see for example this article in Dutch)
 
The Netherlands may not be Britain, but Wilhelmina was absolutely adamant in searching for a Protestant bridegroom for Juliana. I always assumed that was law, but I suppose it could have been personal conviction and religious fervor.

Not sure what she would make of Maxima!
 
The Netherlands may not be Britain, but Wilhelmina was absolutely adamant in searching for a Protestant bridegroom for Juliana. I always assumed that was law, but I suppose it could have been personal conviction and religious fervor.

Not sure what she would make of Maxima!

That was a LONG time ago, when Wilhelmina was queen. The Netherlands is a fairly secular society now...
 
That was a LONG time ago, when Wilhelmina was queen. The Netherlands is a fairly secular society now...

A long time ago, but not that long as far as history or the massive Dutch Reformed tradition and influence is concerned.

Yes, I'm aware the Netherlands is very different now. I still wonder what Wilhelmina would do!
 
The Netherlands may not be Britain, but Wilhelmina was absolutely adamant in searching for a Protestant bridegroom for Juliana. I always assumed that was law, but I suppose it could have been personal conviction and religious fervor.

Not sure what she would make of Maxima!


In fact, not so long ago, Princess Irene and Princess Christina marrying Catholics was an issue in the Netherlands.

I don't think Maxima's religion is an issue today (after all , over 50 % of the Dutch population has no declared religious affiliation). Still,


  1. Maxima was forced to agree to a Protestant wedding.
  2. Maxima was forced to agree that her children would be baptized in the Protestant church and raised as Protestants.
  3. As far as I understand, Amalia is attending a school with a Protestant Christian affiliation (I don't know about her sisters).
I guess that shows the Royal House still cares about its historic connection to the Protestant church. I wonder how much Maxima's Catholicism has influenced her daughters though.
 
In fact, not so long ago, Princess Irene and Princess Christina marrying Catholics was an issue in the Netherlands.

I don't think Maxima's religion is an issue today (after all , over 50 % of the Dutch population has no declared religious affiliation). Still,

  1. Maxima was forced to agree to a Protestant wedding.
  2. Maxima was forced to agree that her children would be baptized in the Protestant church and raised as Protestants.
    [*]As far as I understand, Amalia is attending a school with a Protestant Christian affiliation (I don't know about her sisters).
I guess that shows the Royal House still cares about its historic connection to the Protestant church. I wonder how much Maxima's Catholicism has influenced her daughters though.
All three of them attend the same school. However, I am quite sure it wasn't for its religious affiliation this school was chosen given that Willem-Alexander and Máxima opted for a non-religious public school for primary school (for context: only 30% of pupils go to public school; 70% goes to semi-public/private school (financed by the government but with a private board - however, you need to proof that sufficient children will attend your specific type (mostly religious denomination or pedagogical approach) of school); very few students would attend a completely private school.

And yes, Máxima agreed that her children would be brought up in her husband's faith community - which makes some sense given that she married the future king of the Netherlands. Her wedding as also protestant but with some Catholic elements. Nonetheless, I am sure she shared some of her religious experiences with her children and in some public occasions she still adheres to her own Argentinian Catholic tradition (Dutch Catholics for example don't wear matillas).
 
The Netherlands are essentially a non-religious nation now. The number or persons registered without any denomination dwarfs any other statistic. The number of baptisms, religious wedding services and religious funerals are minimal compared to the "standard" of only having the required civil wedding ceremony and the "standard" of having funerals outside any church.

The statistic correspondents with the level of education, the access to knowledge, the worldwiseness of the people. The higher the general education, the more accessible all and everything is and the more open the world is to travel and to explore, the less people stick to their church indeed.

This phenomenon is visible in all European countries. Even staunch Catholic countries as Ireland and Poland see secularization overtaking.

It is not for nothing that the public religiosity of the royal family is minimal. The King aims to be a King for all. Displaying himself as a Protestant King and naming his Christian God in every speech would be seen as provocative for a nation where the overwhelming majority is atheist. Even in his Christmas's Addresses he barely mentions God, while we actually know he indeed is a person of Faith.
 
Last edited:
If Queen Wilhelmina had found a suitable Prince to be her son-in-law and he was Catholic, could he not have become a member of the Dutch Protestant Church by converting?
 
Yes, of course
 
And one thinks of all the fuss caused by 2 Dutch Princesses marrying Roman Catholics and then later converting to that faith (Princess Irene and the late Princess Christina).How Dutch society has changed in 50 years today no one would bat an eyelid.
 
Also, what exactly are the laws about religion and marriage with the Dutch monarchy? I know the parliament has to approve all marriages but is there a law about the monarch having to be a member of a certain church (Dutch Reformed?) and are there any laws against Orange royals marrying Catholics and keeping their royal rights like in Great Britain?

The Netherlands may not be Britain, but Wilhelmina was absolutely adamant in searching for a Protestant bridegroom for Juliana. I always assumed that was law, but I suppose it could have been personal conviction and religious fervor.

The Royal House of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has never been formally required to be Protestant. See the laws of succession at the time of Princess Juliana's marriage:

https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/vi7ilzebz7zm


We don't take to way out of time medieval rules and regulations regarding faith and our Monarchy.

There are numerous monarchies in the present day, not only in medieval times, with rules and regulations regarding religion and the monarchy.


All three of them attend the same school. However, I am quite sure it wasn't for its religious affiliation this school was chosen given that Willem-Alexander and Máxima opted for a non-religious public school for primary school (for context: only 30% of pupils go to public school; 70% goes to semi-public/private school (financed by the government but with a private board - however, you need to proof that sufficient children will attend your specific type (mostly religious denomination or pedagogical approach) of school); very few students would attend a completely private school.

And yes, Máxima agreed that her children would be brought up in her husband's faith community - which makes some sense given that she married the future king of the Netherlands. [...]

Thank you for the clarification about religious/semi-public education.

In regards to "which makes some sense given that she married the future king of the Netherlands", did Catholics not already outnumber Protestants (with the non-religious outnumbering either group as Duc_et_Pair explained) at the time of Máxima's marriage?
 
Last edited:
The Royal House of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has never been formally required to be Protestant. See the laws of succession at the time of Princess Juliana's marriage:

https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/vi7ilzebz7zm




There are numerous monarchies in the present day, not only in medieval times, with rules and regulations regarding religion and the monarchy.




Thank you for the clarification about religious/semi-public education.

In regards to "which makes some sense given that she married the future king of the Netherlands", did Catholics not already outnumber Protestants (with the non-religious outnumbering either group as Duc_et_Pair explained) at the time of Máxima's marriage?


1960 was the turning point, since then the Catholics alone were overtaking all other Christian denominations in the Netherlands together. In fact the Catholics were already much longer the biggest Christian denomination but the Reformed, the Calvinists, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, etc. counted together made it 50-50 for a long time.

That the Catholics were a massive bloc is shown in the polls. Since 1918 (general voting for all) the Catholics (RKSP, later KVP) have been the biggest political fraction until their merger into the Christian Democrats (with Protestant parties).

But as the elite still was predominantly Protestant, still it was waiting until 1918 for the first Catholic to become Prime Minister (the Limbourgian jonkheer Charles Ruys de Beerenbrouck). Before that the Catholic party was led by priests and it was out of the question that a priest (a servant of the Pope) could become Prime Minister for Queen Wilhelmina. The Queen did appoint one of the priests as a formateur though, to form the first Cabinet with a Catholic Prime Minister.
 
Last edited:
In regards to "which makes some sense given that she married the future king of the Netherlands", did Catholics not already outnumber Protestants (with the non-religious outnumbering either group as Duc_et_Pair explained) at the time of Máxima's marriage?

I was mainly thinking about her marrying a member of a royal family. Generally, if you marry into a royal family, you are expected to adapt more to them than the family is expected to adapt to you. I don't think she would even consider asking that they move to Argentina, would attend a Spanish-speaking school etc. In that same vein, it doesn't make sense to expect the future king to raise his children in your denomination unless he himself decided that he wanted to change denomination.

With regards to the numbers in the Netherlands: at that time the Roman Catholics number about 30% and the protestants about 25% (which is wider than just the protestant church of the Netherlands - there are many other denominations that aren't measured that precisely by CBS); with the non-religious about 40%. However, among those considering themselves protestant the number of those that go to church at least once a month is higher than among those that were baptized Catholics. So, the number of 'active' Protestants is about 2 times as high as 'active' Catholics. The number of pastors/priests also could be an indication of how religious the flock is: the protestants have more than 3 times as many pastors/priests than the Catholic Church.

In general, (also based on regional data) it seems that Catholics are less likely to indicate they are non-religious than (former) Protestants; even if they hardly ever attend a church or don't believe the central doctrines of the Chruch, they will still count themselves as Catholics, while protestants would be more likely in that situation to consider themselves non-religious.

In addition, of those with a religious affiliation only 3 provinces (Noord-Brabant & Limburg - where over 80% is formally a member of the Catholic Church - and Noord-Holland - which has the highest percentage of non-religious) are pre-dominantly Catholic while the other 9 are pre-dominantly Protestant.

So, the Dutch royal family being rather liberal protestants fits quite well with the Dutch population - and having a queen who is Catholic works out fine as well.
 
In regards to "which makes some sense given that she married the future king of the Netherlands", did Catholics not already outnumber Protestants (with the non-religious outnumbering either group as Duc_et_Pair explained) at the time of Máxima's marriage?


According to Wikipedia, the breakdown in 2015 was as follows:



  1. Unaffiliated: 50.1 %
  2. Roman Catholic: 23.7 %
  3. All other Christian denominations: 20.1 %
  4. Islam: 4.9 %
  5. Hinduism: 0.6 %
  6. Buddhism: 0.4 %
  7. Judaism: 0.1 %
In other words, Christians were still a sizeable minority (slightly under 44 % of the population) and, among self-declared Christians, there was an approximately 54/46 split between Catholics and other Christian denominations (mostly Protestant).

The Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) properly, which is the denomination the RF is affiliated with, accounted for 5.7 % of the population in 2015 whereas membership in other Dutch reformed churches stood at approximately 9.8 % of the population.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Yes, but I hadn't looked up the statistics for 2002, and it is possible for religious distributions to shift over two decades.


I was mainly thinking about her marrying a member of a royal family. Generally, if you marry into a royal family, you are expected to adapt more to them than the family is expected to adapt to you. I don't think she would even consider asking that they move to Argentina, would attend a Spanish-speaking school etc. In that same vein, it doesn't make sense to expect the future king to raise his children in your denomination unless he himself decided that he wanted to change denomination.

An example of a king who raised his children in his wife's denomination without changing his own denomination was Leopold I, King of the Belgians (Protestant), who married a French princess (Catholic). In his case it was a sensible solution as it avoided what would have been an ostensibly opportunistic and insincere change for Leopold and showcased the religious tolerance of the Belgians while still guaranteeing that the kings of the future would belong to the same church as their subjects.


1960 was the turning point, since then the Catholics alone were overtaking all other Christian denominations in the Netherlands together. In fact the Catholics were already much longer the biggest Christian denomination but the Reformed, the Calvinists, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, etc. counted together made it 50-50 for a long time.

That the Catholics were a massive bloc is shown in the polls. Since 1918 (general voting for all) the Catholics (RKSP, later KVP) have been the biggest political fraction until their merger into the Christian Democrats (with Protestant parties).

But as the elite still was predominantly Protestant, still it was waiting until 1918 for the first Catholic to become Prime Minister (the Limbourgian jonkheer Charles Ruys de Beerenbrouck). Before that the Catholic party was led by priests and it was out of the question that a priest (a servant of the Pope) could become Prime Minister for Queen Wilhelmina. The Queen did appoint one of the priests as a formateur though, to form the first Cabinet with a Catholic Prime Minister.

With regards to the numbers in the Netherlands: at that time the Roman Catholics number about 30% and the protestants about 25% (which is wider than just the protestant church of the Netherlands - there are many other denominations that aren't measured that precisely by CBS); with the non-religious about 40%. However, among those considering themselves protestant the number of those that go to church at least once a month is higher than among those that were baptized Catholics. So, the number of 'active' Protestants is about 2 times as high as 'active' Catholics. The number of pastors/priests also could be an indication of how religious the flock is: the protestants have more than 3 times as many pastors/priests than the Catholic Church.

In general, (also based on regional data) it seems that Catholics are less likely to indicate they are non-religious than (former) Protestants; even if they hardly ever attend a church or don't believe the central doctrines of the Chruch, they will still count themselves as Catholics, while protestants would be more likely in that situation to consider themselves non-religious.

In addition, of those with a religious affiliation only 3 provinces (Noord-Brabant & Limburg - where over 80% is formally a member of the Catholic Church - and Noord-Holland - which has the highest percentage of non-religious) are pre-dominantly Catholic while the other 9 are pre-dominantly Protestant.

So, the Dutch royal family being rather liberal protestants fits quite well with the Dutch population - and having a queen who is Catholic works out fine as well.

Fascinating! Thank you both.
 
According to Wikipedia, the breakdown in 2015 was as follows:



  1. Unaffiliated: 50.1 %
  2. Roman Catholic: 23.7 %
  3. All other Christian denominations: 20,1 %
  4. Islam: 4,9 %
  5. Hinduism: 0,6 %
  6. Buddhism: 0,4 %
  7. Judaism: 0,1 %
In other words, Christians were still a sizeable minority (slightly under 44 % of the population) and, among self-declared Christians, there was an approximately 54/46 split between Catholics and other Christian denominations (mostly Protestant).

The Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) properly, which is the denomination the RF is affiliated with, accounted for 5.7 % of the population in 2015 whereas membership in other Dutch reformed churches stood at approximately 9.8 % of the population.
Can you provide the exact link to the Wikipedia page you used? As there are several sources of data and they don't necessarily correspond with each other.

Edit: I think I found the link for the first list here; I didn't find the link to your data for the specific denominations in 2015; but noticed that the 9.8% excluded over 300.000 'other members' (that especially are part of the previous 'Hervormde' denomination); so that would add another 1,5 = 2% to the total of the PKN.

Like Tatiana Maria I mostly looked at years close to 2002 (the time of the wedding):
For 2000: 21% protestant (+ 8% other; which most likely at least half is protestant as well), 32% catholics, 40% unaffiliated
And for 2005: 21% protestant (= 9% other; which most likely at least half is protestant as well), 30% catholics, 41% unaffiliated
 
Last edited:
An example of a king who raised his children in his wife's denomination without changing his own denomination was Leopold I, King of the Belgians (Protestant), who married a French princess (Catholic). In his case it was a sensible solution as it avoided what would have been an ostensibly opportunistic and insincere change for Leopold and showcased the religious tolerance of the Belgians while still guaranteeing that the kings of the future would belong to the same church as their subjects.
The Luxembourgian grand ducal family would be another example. Although that was by chance not by design. So, of course, opportunities that arise with a marriage could strategically be used in such case. However, that's still different than a bride coming into a royal family demanding that the family will follow her religion instead of agreeing to raise the children in the religion of the royal family's choosing.
 
Can you provide the exact link to the Wikipedia page you used? As there are several sources of data and they don't necessarily correspond with each other.

Edit: I think I found the link for the first list here; I didn't find the link to your data for the specific denominations in 2015; but noticed that the 9.8% excluded over 300.000 'other members' (that especially are part of the previous 'Hervormde' denomination); so that would add another 1,5 = 2% to the total of the PKN.

Like Tatiana Maria I mostly looked at years close to 2002 (the time of the wedding):
For 2000: 21% protestant (+ 8% other; which most likely at least half is protestant as well), 32% catholics, 40% unaffiliated
And for 2005: 21% protestant (= 9% other; which most likely at least half is protestant as well), 30% catholics, 41% unaffiliated


The link is


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands




The main difference between the 2002 and 2015 figures seems to have been the increase in the "unaffiliated" column.


Among self-declared Christians, as I said, there was an approximate 54/46 split between Catholics and non-Catholics, which is not that far from 50/50 actually.


EDIT: Apparently, the Wikipedia figures came from Statistics Netherlands, so I suppose they are reliable.
 
Last edited:
The link is


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

The main difference between the 2002 and 2015 seems to have been the increase in the "unaffiliated column".

Among self-declared Christians, as I said, there was an approximate 54/46 split between Catholics and non-Catholics, which is not that far from 50/50 actually.

EDIT: Apparently, the Wikipedia figures came from Statistics Netherlands, so I suppose they are reliable.

The CBS's categorization is rather confusing given that they use three categories for people that might be members of one and the same church (PKN) - or from different churches. My main question was about whether it related to membership versus self-declared affiliation as those numbers differ quite significantly. Apparently, the CBS works with 'self-identification' (of a selected sample - so, hopefully they manage to get a representative sample; I could see some denominations/religious groups being less likely to fill out such questionnaires - they have noticed this issue themselves for people from non-western background; so made some adaptations in 2005; but their could be others). The dependency on self-identification also means that differences in how people identify in various denominations (Catholics likely to longer identify as Catholics than other Christians if both would no longer adhere to the doctrines of the church) play into the numbers and might result in significant differences between self-identification and church membership.

Nonetheless, the king is both a member of the PKN and would also self-identify as a protestant. So, in his case there isn't any doubt. And the general trend that the Dutch are less and less religious is also quite clear...
 
Last edited:
Am I right in thinking that Dutch Catholics are predominantly in the south of the country?
 
Am I right in thinking that Dutch Catholics are predominantly in the south of the country?

Yes, you are! As I stated in one of my posts: they are mostly located in the provinces Noord-Brabant and Limburg. These are the two larger provinces in the South; the third southern province Zeeland contains a significant protestant (including reformed) population. There are smaller numbers of Catholics in the other provinces but few in the three most Northern provinces of the country: Friesland, Groningen & Drenthe.
 
Yes, you are! As I stated in one of my posts: they are mostly located in the provinces Noord-Brabant and Limburg. These are the two larger provinces in the South; the third southern province Zeeland contains a significant protestant (including reformed) population. There are smaller numbers of Catholics in the other provinces but few in the three most Northern provinces of the country: Friesland, Groningen & Drenthe.

Thank you. I should have been less lazy & read the thread! Must try harder.:D

So the provinces stayed together despite the religious differences from north to south.
 
Thank you. I should have been less lazy & read the thread! Must try harder.:D

So the provinces stayed together despite the religious differences from north to south.


Most of the Catholic southern provinces in the (original) Low Countries are now part of Belgium.


Actually, the history goes (roughly) like that: in the 15th century, most of today's Belgium and the Netherlands was under the sovereignty of the ducal house of Burgundy (a cadet branch of the royal house of France, whose native language was also French). They passed by marriage to the House of Habsburg when Archduke Maximilian(later the Holy Roman Emperior Maximilian I) married Mary of Burgundy in 1477. Their heir, Philip the Handsome, married Juana, the daughter of the Spanish Catholic Kings, and their son, the future emperor Charles V, inherited both the Crowns of Castile and Aragon, the Habsburg lands and the Burgundian territories.



Following the Reformation, the seven northern provinces, which had become mostly Protestant by then, became an independent republic, whereas the other southern provinces, known as the Spanish Netherlands (roughly today's Belgium), were ruled by the Habsburg Spanish kings until the War of Spanish Succession, when they were ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht to the Austrian Habsburgs. During the Spanish rule, the Protestant reformation was suppressed in the South as in other parts of the Spanish empire (the world's largest empire at the time !).


Following the French Revolution, the Austrian Netherlands and, later, the Dutch republic were occupied by the French. After Napoleon was defeated by a coalition of British, German and Dutch forces, the Congress of Vienna established a united kingdom under Willem I of Orange-Nassau who ruled over the present-day Netherlands and Belgium (and was also Grand Duke of Luxembourg in personal union). The united kingdom was broken by the Belgian revolution of 1830, which created the Kingdom of Belgium and installed Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (the widower of Princess Charlotte of Wales) as the first King of the Belgians.


Leopold himself was a Protestant (Lutheran), but he married the daughter of the King of the French, who was Catholic, and raised his sons in the Catholic faith, to conform to the majority religion in Belgium.


EDIT: If King Philippe had never married nor had legitimate issue, which was what many people actually expected prior to his surprise engagement to Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, he would have been probably succeeded one day by Prince Amedeo, Princess Astrid's eldest son, whose father is a Habsburg and Archduke of Austria-Este. So the Habsburgs would have been returned to their allegedly rightful place as kings of Belgium. That is still a possibility if Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, marries a Habsburg.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

Thank you for taking the time to outline that history.:flowers:

My knowledge is sketchy but that certainly helps fill a few gaps.

A continuing United Kingdom of the Netherlands would have been very good for the European balance of power I think. Shame it didn't last. But that's going very off topic.
 
:previous:

Thank you for taking the time to outline that history.:flowers:

My knowledge is sketchy but that certainly helps fill a few gaps.

A continuing United Kingdom of the Netherlands would have been very good for the European balance of power I think. Shame it didn't last. But that's going very off topic.


Just as a tip, you can experience most of that timeline ( at least from the Dutch perspective) by looking at the paintings at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. Especially the Reformation in the Netherlands, the war of independence against Spain, the war(s) against the French, and the Belgian revolution.
 
Back
Top Bottom