Template talk:History of the Low Countries

message: Nice template!
This should be included on all the historical Low Countries pages; i'll see if i can get round to doing that. One note though: surprised you didnt choose Orange as color for the Netherlands; maybe an idea? :-) --The Minister of War 14:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: I guess this (pretty!) new template makes others like :Template:Netherlands state obsolete. I have one remark: Spanish Netherlands and Austrian Netherlands are currently redirects to Southern Netherlands, which covers the history of the southern half of the Seventeen Provinces between 1579 (the treaties of Utrecht and Atrecht/Arras) and the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. This seems a sensible division to me, and the template should reflect that. BTW were the Seventeen Provinces referred to as such between 1556 and 1579?Markussep 11:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks

message: Image used in the template has no source information. Please use the image with appropriate copyrights, else it would effect the template because of deletion of the image. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:Bishopric liege flag.gif

message: This is in response to a request I got from Str1977.
The reason why Luxembourg was in the German confederation, is that the germans refused to see it annexed by the Netherlands. Therefore it remained in personal union with the king of the Netherlands, while Prussia had some military in the city of Luxembourg (strategic place).
The personal union was disrupted in 1860 because the family of Orange-Nassau had no direct male descendant. Adolphe from Nassau then became Grand-Duke of Luxembourg.
Independance was acheived in several steps:
In 1830, the king of the Netherlands signed a "decrét" (don't remember how to spell the English word) which gave Luxembourg its autonomy. From that event on, the King send his son Henri to represent the king, instead of sending any governor. Henry was in favour of an independance for Luxembourg from the Netherlands. The treaty of London in 1839 confirmed the independance of the Grand-Duchy. A crisis between the country about its statute emerged in 1867 between France (Napoleon wanted to buy the country from the Netherlands) and Prussia, which eventually led to the second treaty of London confirming the neutrality of Luxembourg. Prussia withdraw its military.
French sources:
I think you should keep 1839 in your template, just as you did with 1830 for Belgium. The only reason why Luxembourg was in the German confederation was because it helped the Germans as a buffer. The personal union with the king of the Netherlands was between 1839 and 1890 only formal.
I hope I could answer your question.
--Jangli 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer to [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] about Luxembourg 

message: is better I thnik. You Should copy it. MaCRoEco 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template in French 

message: The template mentions re. the Duchy of Luxemburg "integrated 1441". What exactly does this mean? I didn't see any mention of a particular event on that year in any of the articles about the duchy or the history of the Grand Duchy. Aviad2001 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I don't understand  

message: The template now indicates that the whole Benelux area was part of the French Empire between 1810 and 1815. I wonder why this has not caused heated protests up to now :-) For the current Netherlands the incorporation lasted from the Rambouillet Decree of July 9, 1810 till the Proclamation by the Hogendorp triumvirate on November 17, 1813 of the provisional "General Administration of the United Netherlands" (though the newly-styled "Sovereign Prince" only arrived on November 30). By that time a large part of the country had already been evacuated by the French, though some fortresses like Gorinchem, Naarden and Den Helder had to be besieged to dislodge them. Admittedly, the interlude of the "Sovereign Prince" is a bit murky, as in Dutch mythology this period is retroactively merged with the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, but it is cerainly incorrect to extend the era of the Empire till 1815, because France formally surendered its claims by the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814. As far as present-day Belgium is concerned: the French empire ended there with Buelows proclamation of Feb. 1, 1814 in Brussels, which started the Governorate-general of Belgium. On the basis of the London Protocol of June 20 (or 21), 1814 the Sovereign Prince of the United Netherlands was appointed governor-general on August 1, 1814, putting the two countries under a single government in practice, though this was not  formalized until the proclamation of the United Kingdom on March 16, 1815. Of course, this was all homologated by the Final Act of the Congess of Vienna of June 8, 1815, but it would be exceedingly formal to use this as the date of record (we don't give Sept. 3, 1783 as the date for American Independence either :-) In sum: I think in the columns for Belgium and the Netherlands there should be space in 1814 for the governorate-general and the "Sovereign Prince" (which should not make the Netherlands a "principality" by the way, though it is difficult to explain what the proper designation would be).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap 1813-1815 

message: why does it look like Luxemburg was spawnd out of belgium? I always thought they stayed in personal union with the netherlands untill the first female queen?--SelfQ (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: L'bourg

message: Hi, great template. Could someone explain why there are pipes, e.g. I read "United Netherlands" but the link is to "Dutch Republic". Thanx. -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names different through piping 

message: Whilst all the Habsburg territories of the Southern Netherlands took part in the brief revolt against Habsburg rule to form the United States of Belgium in 1790, this template suggests that the Bishopric of Liège did too.
I'm pretty sure that Liège (and the County of Bouillon and the Imperial Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy) didn't join the USB (having never been Habsburg territories in the first place). The French article :fr:États-Belgiques-Unis — and the French version of this template (:fr:Modèle:États du Benelux) don't list any of these three territories in the USB — indeed, they list Bouillon and Stavelot-Malmedy in the same box as Liège, suggesting that these territories were indeed independent of the révolution brabançonne. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed this issue by importing and translating the French template. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States of Belgium and the ''révolution brabançonne'' 

message: I wonder why Nazi Germany is shown in the Belgium and Luxembourg columns but not in the The Netherlands.  I should either be in all three or my preference would be to not show it at all.
The Netherlands and Luxembourg never formally surrendered to Germany and in Belgium the King did but this was not recognised by the Government. All three governments went into exile.
For Belgium there is also a discrepancy as the first period goes to 1944, then Nazi Germany goes to 1945 and the second period for Belgium starts at 1944.Bigar (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I utterly agree with Bigar. Vb 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Germany 

message: It seems that there has been a minor mistake considering Luxembourg in this template. Luxembourg was under a personal union until 1839, but not part of the (United) Kingdom of the Netherlands. William I was both King of the Netherlands and Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. See also discussion above (2006) for more detail. effeietsanders 07:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luxembourg II 

message: I am currious about from where are the years, 695 and 1456, for the Bishopric of Utrecht sourced from? From what I have seen, it was established in 1024 and disestablished in 1528. Prior to its beginning part of its territory was divided from Lower Lorraine. At its end, in 1528, it was divided into the Lordship of Utrecht, Lordship of Overijssel, and the County of Drenthe. Please discuss on Talk:Bishopric of Utrecht if anyone has any additional information.
:Source: History of Holland. Philip the Good of Burgundy increased Burgundian influence in Utrecht by securing in 1456 the election of his illegitimate son David, as Bishop of Utrecht. --Watisfictie (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bishopric of Utrecht, a principality of the Holy Roman Empire, was not established in 695 but in 1024 and it was not disestablished in 1456 but in 1528. David's election did not change the Bishopric of Utrecht's status as a principality of the Holy Roman Empire. Why not use those years? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishopric of Utrecht 

message: I'm curious about the notion of the area of the Kingdom of Frisia - c. Zeeland, Holland, Friesland and Ostfriesland - being unpopulated (which, if you ask me, is better described as uninhabited, but that's just semantics). Does this mean literal lack of population due to the Migration Period, or does it mean lack of any true tribes with armies in the area? 86.86.215.140 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That information comes from the article History of the Netherlands#Disappearance of the Frisii, where the word "unpopulated" is used. But you might be right when it comes to semantics, I'm not a native speaker.--Watisfictie (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Unpopulated''?