Comments by "Lynott Parris" (@DenUitvreter) on "King William III: The Dutch Monarch of Great Britain" video.

  1. Excellent video but by now primary sources have shown that William contacted the 7 lords and asked to be invited, while the States-general had already an invasion fleet build and was assembling an army. William knew of the English sensitivities of being invaded and being ruled by a foreigner, and since it was a stable ally he was after, and threw all the propaganda tricks known from the 80-years independence war at the English people. The invitation was only one those, his soldiers were forbidden to use words like invasion or conquest, he called himself liberator, he rode a white horse in shiny armour, he brought a regiment of black soldiers in white turbands to impress as a world power, he held speeches, he promised religious tolerance for the catholics. He also brought John Locke over from the Dutch Republic where he had lived and written his important works. Het actually acompanied Mary on the crossing. So revolution is a bit of a stretch, to put it nicely, but the product of the propaganda of it's day and after. The idea of parliament picking a king to serve the people was not complete in the sense that the legitimacy had to be claimed ot mary's blood line and only could because the legitimate king had left, it also wasn't that radical anymore. The Dutch Republic originated from the idea that a monarch should lead and protect the people like a shepard his sheep, respect their inalienable rights like the freedom of conscience (of how to serve god and therefore freedom of religion) and that a legitimate monarch that trampled those rights and the ancient rights and privileges of the cities (including managing religious affairs as a matter of public order) was a tyrant to be removed. It's all in the Dutch DOI of 1581, which isn't as catchy a read as the American DOI but very similar in substance. This infringement on the divine right of kings by the Dutch had not lead to god's wrath, on the contrary, the Dutch Republic had faired extremely well since, of course money and guns talk and the Dutch Republic was by far the richest country. The stadtholders of the Orange family gave the European monarchies nobility to talk to instead of just a republican peasant like DeWitt, while it didn't challenge the concept of European monarchy directly nor did they betray the system of bloodlines by claiming to be king themselves. So it had been a bit of a balancing act in the century before.
    6
  2. Yes, he remained stadtholder of the Dutch Republic. He worked two jobs for the future of his beloved protestantism (and religious tolerance). He once sighed that he felt king of the Dutch Republic and stadtholder of England because of the English parliament being so much more of a nuisance.
    5
  3.  @chrislittle2366  Yes, very different from his elder brother. He was a gentle and very enlightened man, as in embracing the enlightenment. He really loved the Dutch and was loved back and started modern monarch, he started Dutch monarchy overall of course. But putting on his wellies and visiting a disaster scene for example is still core business of our royals. That why Napoleon sacked him, he was only interested in the money and didn't realize "Holland" wasn't as filthy rich as in the 17th century anymore. Louis moved to Weimar were he became friends with Goethe.
    3
  4.  @chrislittle2366  History with Hilbert has some nice video's on Dutch history. Hilbert reads Dutch and that helps a lot. Especially the 17th century and the late 16th are interestiing. Lots of war, politics, intrigue, but also lots of social and economical change, freedom, the Dutch Republic putting the modern into the early modern period. In the lacklustre 18th century it was a country of rentiers and beggars, the most improductive people according to Voltaire. The 19th century it was in crisis, turned inward a lot, late to new developments, socially conservtive and lots of poverty.
    3
  5. Louis Napoleon, "king of Holland" is also a fascinating guy. Van Oldenbarneveldt and Maurice of Nassau were a duo of huge importance and a tragic story. DeWitt also is but the issue is probably with limited sources in English.
    2
  6. No, that is a stupid British myth going around on YT.
    2
  7.  @chrislittle2366  I read his biography, it's one those unusual characters ending up in a position he doesn't belong and making his own thing out of it. Still a bit of a tragic figure though.
    1
  8. Probably also because he's been made into the figure head of Northern Irish protestants and nobody really likes those and it embarasses Dutch protestants.
    1
  9.  @Raadpensionaris  Don't forget the Lodewijk for the French king which is about the least French name imaginable or pronouncable by the French. Guillermo is what the Spanish call Willem.
    1
  10. Because it's nonsense probably, an internet myth.
    1