Talk:Government of the Dutch Republic in exile

Is there no requirement that wikipedia articles should have some relationship with reality? If there is, I should like to nominate this article for deletion. It is non-sensical to designate stadtholder William V's sojourn in England after 1795 as a "government in exile" of the Dutch Republic. He himself may have thought about it like that, and the English government may have encouraged such pretensions up to the Peace of Amiens (which the article does not mention at all), but that construction did not make it into historiography (just as king James II's sojourn in France after 1689 is not generally designated as the "English government in exile"). So I think this entire article belongs in the category of "fantasy history." In any case, the era in question in Dutch history is already adequately (and more conventionally) covered in Batavian Republic and the articles that lead off that article. William V's exile should be covered in the wikipedia article devoted to that personage, if that is not already the case. This article is just a waste of space.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’m sorry you seem slightly offended by this article, but I’m not convinced that your charge of it being non-sensical is correct. The only issue I had with creating the article was with the title, as after a while the commitment to the Dutch Republic began to wane and many of the Orangists and British planners urged the Prince of Orange towards outright monarchy. Still I feel “Government of the Dutch Republic in Exile” still adequately describes Orange, his supporters, and their aims.

To consider to the “fantasy” charge, you are to some extent right. Governments in Exile do tend to often exist in deluded denial of territories that they actually control. The title of “Government” does not confer any sense of legitimacy or control, as in the case of the Spanish Republican government in Exile or the Government of the Democratic Republic of Georgia in Exile. Unlike many of these other governments in exile, portions of the Dutch Empire were for a while administered in the Stadholder’s name. In this regard it is no more fantasy than the article about the Dutch government in exile about the second world war government in London exile.

This article is by no means perfect, and I hoped to improve it during the next few days. The Peace of Ameins does need to be mentioned, and additional info needs to be added about the period during 1803-13 when much of the Orangist movement began to fall into decline, and was for some time deprived of serious British support.

It might be worth adding the Batavian POV and critique of this government, but I can’t see the grounds for deletion that you suggest. You might not agree with this government or their claims to rule the Netherlands, but they did exist - there are a number of blue plaques around London referring to them as the Dutch Government in Exile. The British took them seriously enough to launch an invasion on their behalf in 1799, and in 1813 they gave material support towards their restoration. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On reflection my objections are two-fold:

• I think the article is superfluous, because all the facts in it are already treated in other articles; the only "new" element is the title, which asserts the actual existence of a "government in exile".
• more importantly, I think this approach is actually deleterious, because it introduces an anachronism by using the conceptual framework of the "governments in exile" hosted by the British government in WWII in the context of the Napoleonic/French Revolutionary wars. This is actually an argument by analogy, which equates the Patriots with the NSB-Quislings; Queen Wilhelmina with William V; the "Dutch Legion" with the Princess-Irene Brigade; and the mutineers at Saldanha Bay and De Vlietert with resistance fighters. Pieter Geyl warned against these false analogies in his post-WWII essay that is quoted in the Batavian Republic article.

I would deny that the analogy is correct on substantive grounds. Though a lot of Continental potentates lost their crowns/offices during the upheaval of the revolutionary wars and had to seek asylum in Great Britain, none of these formed "governments in exile", except the government of Maria I of Portugal. This applies to Charles IV of Spain, Louis XVIII of France as well as William V. At most one might say that they established courts-in-exile (I would consequently not object to a title like "Stadtholder William V's court-in-exile after 1795").

I would deny that, like the Dutch government-in-exile after 1940, William V governed overseas possessions of the VOC or WIC (there were no colonies of the Dutch state as yet). The few VOC colonies that fell into British hands as a consequence of William's Kew Letters were not administered in his name, but became possessions of the EIC (and were given back to the Batavian Republic in 1802). Likewise, the Dutch naval vessels that sought refuge in British ports after the flight of William to England, were taken over by the British Navy, instead of remaining under Dutch command, like the Dutch naval vessels that fled to England in 1940. It is true, however, that the British went through the charade of "buying" the vessels they obtained through mutiny in the Vlieter Incident from William V, which caused much resentment in the Netherlands at the time (as many of these ships had been financed by public subscription after the Battle of Camperdown disaster.) I am not sure present-day Dutchmen want to be reminded of this display of avarice on William's part, but it would certainly deserve a mention in the interest of historical completeness (as would the haggling about financial compensation and William's "arrears in pay" at the negotiations for the Amiens Peace). Of course, another glaring difference in circumstances was that the German occupiers did not change the position in international law of the Dutch state in 1940, whereas in 1795 the Dutch Republic was replaced by the Batavian Republic. Though Great Britain recognized this new state only at the Peace of Amiens, it was a political reality from its very proclamation in January, 1795. Pretending that the old Republic continued to exist after that date is completely at variance with historical reality. If you want to defend this position, you should make that explicit in the article and give your arguments.

My advice would be to scratch this article and instead spruce up the article on William V, Prince of Orange, which needs a completely overhaul, in its grammar and spelling, if not in anything else. That article lacks a section on the details of William's life after 1795.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not replying sooner, I’ve been away from home for a while. I’m slightly amused by the implied suggestion that I am an Orangist. I’d actually admit to having pro-Batavian sympathies. In my eyes William V was not an inspiring leader and deserved much of the contempt he received from much of the British press and Batavian populace. On the other hand I’m not Dutch so I don’t have a great deal emotionally involved in it either way. My awareness and interest in the topic came through my interest in the 1799 invasion and the motivation of the British to support it, than it did in any particular support of the Orangists.

You might be right about changing the title, and your suggestion sounds good. As I said I had various problems coming up with a title both with regard to the fact that the commitment to a “Dutch Republic” lessened, and also because the term “Government in exile” is something of an anachronism, not used until more than a century later, although this was in effect what they were.

Some governments-in-exile are more realistic, others verge towards pure fantasy. As I said before the term doesn’t bestow any sense of control or legitimacy. William V didn’t control or govern the Netherlands from 1795, and the article could definitely be more explicit in stating that, but that doesn’t mean he and his supporters didn’t consider themselves to be the government. In this regard they are similar to the Spanish Republican government in Exile, who had no control of Spain after 1939 or the Government of the Democratic Republic of Georgia in Exile who had lost Georgia to the Soviets in 1921.

In response to your point about the WWII government-in-exile, that wasn’t the framework for this article as my knowledge about that era in Dutch history is fairly limited so no Analogy was intended. Nor was this supposed to be a challenge or an alternative history to the article of the Batavian Republic, who clearly administered the Netherlands, but rather to run as a parallel - in the same way the Spanish Republican article does to Spain under Franco. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, it is at least a relief that you are not Dutch :-) Because a Dutchman in his right mind would not maintain that the Dutch Republic continued after January, 1795 (as the title of your article seems to imply), and had a government in exile. But I think we are talking in circles now.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

We are now going in circles. With all due respect, I have said to you several times that the title does not imply that they were a real government in any shape or form. I think you are examining this from a viewpoint dominated by the WWII Dutch government in exile when a comparison to the Spanish Republicans is more sutiable (ie. claiming to be the government doesn't actually make you the government). I am also very open to changing the title.

Ceirtainly the text needs cleaning up, and there are swathes that need to be added to it in the long run, but I don't see it qualifying for deletion as you suggest. It seems to pass notability easily. I don't object to the neutrality tag - though I do resent the implication that this is somehow my POV. Your attitude on that seems to be stretching WP:AGF. I am not a Dutchman but a Canadian - what I've written here is simply reflecting the history books I've read rather than reflecting my own opinion. As I've said before, if anything I tend to mildy sympathise with the Batavians. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to be unkind, but couldn't you limit yourself to things you know anything about, or preferably are an expert on? Of course, nationality has nothing to do with this. But you evidently have only a nodding acquaintance with the subject. Isn't there a subject in Canadian history that attracts you? An Arcadian government-in-exile after the Seven Years' War, for instance?--Ereunetes (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please dicuss the issue rather than the editor, even if you are trying to avoid being unkind. Articles need to be constructed from WP:RS, that is the criteria, they do not need to be written by experts. I did not say I had only a nodding acquiatance, I said I wrote the article from books that cover the subject.

I assume the Arcadian remark was intended to be a jibe, but I will respond to it seriously and say that I have never heard of any attempt to create one. However if evidence of one were produced then I would support the creation of an article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You see, here is a subject you do know something about :-) However, I am sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to get ad hominem but unfortunately you were asking for it. Because it is clear from the article as it stands that you are not familiar with the subject, both by what you put in, and by what you omit. That is a terrible handicap if one attempts to write a useful article. I could pepper the article with "citation needed" tags but that would serve little purpose. Apparently (from the number of citations to his book you did put in) you lean rather heavily on Zamoyski, but he is hardly an expert on Dutch history, however worthy his treatment of the Vienna Congress may be. So I would suggest that you read a real expert on Dutch history in the period in question: Simon Schama's acclaimed Patriots and Liberators. Maybe that would open your eyes. However, that is all by the by. To repeat my two main objections to the article: I think it is superfluous because its contents are already part of other articles, where they are covered better, and I think the title introduces a major historical error, as there was no Dutch Republic (as that term is used in wikipedia) after January, 1795; stadtholder William V alone never formed its government, either before or after 1795 (that was the States-General); and there was never a government-in-exile in the accepted sense of the term under his leadership. At most one could speak of a "court-in-exile" of ex-stadtholder William V, in analogy with Louis XVIII's court. But I have said all this before. (Incidentally, I followed the link to your "Fall of Amsterdam" article. I am afraid that also is largely a figment of your imagination. See Schama). I am sorry, but you are not doing a favor to people who don't know the subject but have come to trust wikipedia implicitly.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it is significant that there is no corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia. I can only agree with Ereunetes that " stadtholder William V alone never formed its government, either before or after 1795 (that was the States-General); and there was never a government-in-exile in the accepted sense of the term under his leadership. At most one could speak of a "court-in-exile" of ex-stadtholder William V, in analogy with Louis XVIII's court". Also, as Lord Cornwallis says: "after a while the commitment to the Dutch Republic began to wane and many of the Orangists and British planners urged the Prince of Orange towards outright monarchy". So this supposed government in exile was nothing more than the person of William V, acting as the head of government he never officially was, trying to get reinstated as the de-facto ruler of the Netherlands. In the end his son succeded in this goal, but not through any support for the Republic.--Joostik (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually what it implies is that a foreign agent tried to convince a military leader to replace the lawfully chosen government. We also recognise this as a conspiracy aimed at achieving a military coup détat; which failed in this case, with the military leader having to ask for political asylum abroad. I am not very sure that we should label such a general as a government in exile indeed. 16:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In 1801 William V and his son recognized the Batavian Republic in the "Oranienstein letters". This is ommited in this article and the one about William V. If there was ever a "government in exile", which seems mere fantasy to me, there certainly wasn't after 1801. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply