Een nieu Guese liede boecxken. The States Party and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1. Historians have contended that the political usage of references to the Revolt of the Netherlands (1. They consider the rise of interest in national history a phenomenon of the Enlightenment and, in the Dutch context, the result of a growing popular awareness of real or imaginary economic and moral decline. Leonard Leeb, for example, has shown that revolutionaries and their opponents at the end of the eighteenth century revived popular interest in the national past to cloak their arguments . They have shown that supporters of the house of Orange (which had played a leading role in the sixteenth- century struggle against the Habsburg overlord) and their adversaries (who disapproved of the princes of Orange having political influence) prolifically commemorated the Revolt of the Netherlands in the seventeenth century. Furthermore, Judith Pollmann has demonstrated that anti- peace propagandists used references to the first decades of the Revolt, the 1. Spain. This political exploitation of the past at the beginning of the seventeenth century resulted in a popular historical canon, a sequential narrative that reduced the conflict to the bare essentials of Dutch victimhood and Spanish evil. Recurring episodes in the canon were, for instance, the religious persecutions of Philip II in the 1. With a substantial part of the population still adhering to Catholicism, such an approach would be counter- productive. The canonical narrative lost this open character, however, when it became contested in the domestic struggles between two factions within the Reformed church during the Twelve Years. Due to the ultimate victory of the orthodox Counter- Remonstrant faction, and of their protector Prince Maurice of Orange, the historical canon of the Revolt acquired Orangist as well as orthodox Calvinist associations. Stern demonstrates that when the provincial States barred the orphaned son of William II of Orange (1. Looking back on the continued references to the past during the disorders and troubles at the time of the First Anglo- Dutch War (1. He wrote that Orangist propagandists felt it was necessary: for reason of State / on the Chair / during meals / in Barges / and on Carts to tell / yes for children to learn at their mother. It would well- nigh be idolatry / should one not believe it. Stern. These were, after all, tainted by Orangist associations and, furthermore, opponents of the Orange dynasty already had a wide repertoire of alternative ways to argue why the Republic did not need the house of Orange. Anti- Orangist propagandists frequently deployed such alternative frames of reference. The present article will explore 1) why, despite the pro- Orange character of the historical canon of the Revolt, members of the States Party nonetheless used references to the Revolt in support of their political arguments, and 2) how they solved the problems they encountered in doing so. Two cases will be dealt with: firstly, the aftermath of William II. Other provinces as well as the stadholder Prince William II were less keen on Holland. The prince and his supporters believed that Dutch people profited from war because the shared enemy had kept the country together. The example of the Twelve Years. As the story goes, they had urged Philip to negotiate a peace with the rebels so that the Dutch could be lulled to sleep. The king would subsequently need only to coordinate a surprise attack to bring the disobedient provinces back under his rule. Yet, he admitted that not even those of . Holland could thus not simply discharge the military regiments on its own. According to Holland, however, this interpretation of the Union of Utrecht was acceptable only in war time, whereas now that the war was over, doubt had arisen about the Union. Since there was no central financial administration in the Republic and individual provinces were responsible for paying the troops allocated to them (. The attack failed as a number of companies lost their way. A courier from Hamburg had seen the troops and notified Amsterdam. The city subsequently locked its gates and could no longer be taken by surprise. A few months after the failed attack, the prince died unexpectedly. Although William II. OHIO HIGH SCHOOL BOYS PROGRESSIVE RECORD LIST-field events. Tyran Thompson, Nasir. Myers, Slagle, Van Wormer. 32’6”-Toledo Scott-4-30-32-Ohio. Tyran Flipper; Back to Listings. This Tyran framelock flipper from Mikkel Willumsen features a satin finished blade and a two tone. Grand Pensionary Jacob Cats opened the first meeting in January 1. In a speech that was later published, Cats thanked God . Yet it did not solve the continuing tensions between provincial autonomy and the delegation of authority to the Union. Already well before the assembly had begun, supporters of True Freedom and Orangist propagandists had fought out a media war. In their political arguments in the . Holeulone: un suono che dilania in vorticoso movimento, una poetica fusione tra corpo e disegno. Ispirato al romanzo fantascientifico I fiori di Algernon. Official COURT RECORDS CHECK Instantly Access Legal Judgments, Liens, Bankruptcies, Felonies & Misdemeanors. Jonathan Kongbo Wyoming Cowboys #93 - Defensive End Height: 6-6; Weight: 250; Seasons: FR; Team Player. Rebs whiff on 4-star Kongbo. The well- known anti- Orangist pamphlet Holland Talk, which was published shortly after William II. The author for example suggested that William II had treated the cities of Holland . Holland decries William II for . El duque de Alba en la conciencia colectiva de los flamencos Lieve Behiels Katholieke Vlaamse Hogeschool, Antwerpen Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, tercer duque de Alba.He cites the first article of the Union (which, as he points out, gave the Republic its name of . As a result, the States General no longer recognized the duke as their sovereign. By evoking this historical example, the author of Holland Talk showed that it was not impossible to appropriate the memory of William I while criticizing his grandson William II. To further emphasize that William II acted even more despicably than Anjou, the Hollander argues that . Here there are States / who stand in their own right / and who acknowledge no one as a higher lord. William II was merely a stadholder, which meant his conduct was even more unconstitutional. A similar argument can be found in the Right Second Part of the Holland Talk, in which a Brabanter claims that William II surpassed even the duke of Alba in wickedness. The Gelderlander is shocked by this statement: . The States Party and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1650-1660. Ferdinand Alvarez de Toledo, de hertog van Alva, leefde. Zo schreef Justus van Effen in 1731 door’een party wyven’ te zijn uitgemaakt Remind, formerly Remind101, is a communication tool that helps teachers reach students and parents where they are. Las dudas con Van Gaal. The Brabanter subsequently explains that Alba acted on the orders of his natural lord, Philip II, while William II counteracted the orders of his, the States of Holland. The published fictional dialogues between Dutch people from all corners of the Republic demonstrate how authors sought to increase the persuasiveness of their argument by involving people with diverging opinions and then having the author. Four men (a Hollander, a Zeelander, a Frisian and a Groninger) gather in a bookshop in The Hague and discuss the political situation. The Groninger has just entered and asks for news, specifically for tidings from France or England. The Hollander answers that they were not talking about England or France but about . The Groninger does not quite understand this celebration of the prince. Was it not a bit cruel to celebrate William? The Hollander explains that just before his death, the prince was as bellicose as ever. His death may have been tragic, but ultimately it benefitted the country. To prove his point, the Hollander teaches a brief history lesson in which he gives a new spin to existing narratives about the Revolt. He refers to the sixteenth- century past to show that from the greatest evil good things could arise. He recalls a series of events, beginning with the religious persecutions under Philip II. These persecutions violated local privileges, but the positive result was public discontent. Discontent in the 1. Revolt, which ultimately gave rise to the freedom that people enjoyed . The next episode in the story of the Hollander is the governorship of the duke of Alba at the end of the 1. The frequent references to his oppressive tribunal, the Council of Troubles, in a variety of media show that by 1. But although Alba was perceived as wicked, his regime had strengthened the rebels in their convictions and had motivated them to continue fighting. Then the Hollander arrives at the famous capture of Den Briel by the rebels in 1. In most narratives, authors used these episodes as evidence of the cruel nature of Spanish rulers and to justify the war against Spain. The Hollander looks at it from a more positive perspective. When they were besieged in 1. This proved to be the best strategy, and both cities fought off the Spanish army. The Hollander ends with the murder of William of Orange by Balthasar Gerard in 1. In signing the Exclusion Act, Holland succumbed to pressures from England. Should this William III become stadholder of the powerful Dutch Republic, he might eventually help restore his uncle as king of England. Holland had signed the secret clause without consulting the States General, thereby angering Orangists at home and in the other provinces of the Republic. The States of Friesland, for instance, complained at the States General about this act which they felt slighted the descendant of . Excluding the current prince of Orange from public office was, they felt, the worst kind of ingratitude. Most Orangist publications of the period argued that gratitude was owed to the Orange dynasty. To give one other example, during the Exclusion controversy in 1. Johannes Beuken wrote a poem in honour of the house of Orange- Nassau, and he dedicated it to the Magistrate of the city of Leiden. In his dedication he wrote: ? That House to which we owe, apart from God, our freedom. By successfully fighting off the Spanish king from 1. Orange) had laid the first stone of a new state: the Dutch Republic. After exhorting his readers to praise the house of Orange, Beuken gave a poetic account of important sieges, battles and other events from the beginning of the Revolt in 1. Peace of Westphalia in 1. The author claimed that what had happened during the war against Spain was . Yet, he advised anyone . The English ambassador in The Hague observed that the text was . These were fundamental principles, yet De Witt used historical precedents, especially the Revolt, to argue more convincingly why Holland was justified in denying the young Prince William III the right to succeed as stadholder. He posed the rhetorical question: . By likening the Abjuration of 1. Exclusion of 1. 65.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |