Talk:William III of England

See also Talk:William of Orange

Persecution

hello Put more about what he has to do with the persecutions

Puritans were not the ancestors to modern day Presbyterians. Puritans were a Calvinist movement in England separate from Presbyterianism, which was Scottish Calvinism promoted by John Knox.

"Puritans" and "Independents" encompassed a wide variety of theological positions. It is not really accurate to compare them to modern denominations. Depending upon the sect (and there were many) preferred church government could be presbyterian, congregationalist, or anarchic. The term "Puritan" is a rather nebulous term in its own right. It referred originally to Calvinist members of the Church of England but eventually came to cover many (if not all) dissenting varieties of English Protestantism. A more accurate dichotomy would probably be between "presbyterians" and "Independents." During and after the English Civil War, the former group favored the retention of an English national church, but using presbyterian government and largely Calvinist theology. Independents favored a more decentralized congregational approach, with toleration for all Protestant sects.

Death rumour

I've heard the story that William fell from his horse and died after it stumbled in a mole's burrow, and that "the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat" was thereafter often toasted in Scotland. Is there any truth to this? —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)MARCUS MILLER

Yes, well, toasted by Jacobites anyway. -- Arwel 14:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sectarianism

What nothing on his modern influence on sectarianism, and how this man is a hero to every fascist nutter in Northern Ireland and South West Scotland?

Indeed. And it's a featured article as well. I'll have to keep an eye on the featured article nominations in future if this slipped through. I would have thought this article would have been mired in controversy and have a long talk page, but as you say there's nothing in the article to connect him with modern Irish matters. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prince of Orange

Johan Willem Friso did not follow William III as Prince of Orange; he did use the title but he was no longer the Prince of Orange. from the Prince of Orange:

Because William III died childless, the principality was inherited by Frederic of Prussia, who ceded it to France in 1713. In this way the title lost its feudal and secular privileges. The title remained in the Prussian family until 1918, and was also given to Louis de Mailly, whose family still holds the title today.

and from Johan Willem Friso of Orange-Nassau

After the death of William III of Orange the direct line of the House of Orange was extinct and Johan Willem Friso claimed the succession as stadtholder in all provinces. This was denied to him by the republican faction in the Netherlands. His son, however, later became William IV of Orange stadtholder of all seven provinces. Because William III was related in the female line to the Prussian king, the latter also claimed part of the inheritance (for example Lingen).

I changed the succession box accordingly and moved it to the Stadtholder's succession box. I think this way it's more clear.

By the way I have put the succession box for the whole Orange-Nassau line (from Henry to William III). --145.94.41.95 14:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it again - my understanding is that Johan Willem Friso and Frederick of Prussia disputed the right to the title of Prince of Orange. It was irrelevant, because the territory was occupied by France for the whole of the Spanish Succession war. john k 14:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah! we meet again, what did you think about my improvements --145.94.41.95 15:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Title Prince of Orange is still used by William's ancestors even if they are not known by that title to the public....... William III did have a child but not by Mary rather it was by his misstress Elizabeth Villiers however the illegitemite child..... William IV... was forced into hiding by John William Friso.... however there are still descendants of William IV alive today who still have claims to the title Prince of OrangeWinn3317 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

House

What house is William III, House of Stuart or House of Orange ? Astrotrain 11:37, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that he is a member of both Houses. A member of the House of Orange by birth and member of the House of Stuart by marriage. User:Dimadick

A man does not aquire the house of his wife, William III is last of the House of Orange-Nassau --145.94.41.95 16:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And women do not aquire the house of their husbands. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He represented that house in his reign of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland though. User:Dimadick

He was a member of both houses. His mother, was a Stewart, his father an Orange.

The monarchy's website counts him as a Stuart/Stewart. 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.236 (talk)

William's Childhood

There is NOTHING on William's childhood--which was interesting in its own right-- in this article. I am willing to add it in myself, but it will be a while since I've got a few other things to worry about at the moment. But his childhood really should be included in this article.*Kat* 09:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

redirect from William of Orange

In my opinion, the assumption that this guy is the best known Wlliam of Orange, is erroneous. In actual fact, the first William of Orange I ever faced in history books was William I. Not this guy. Now, I understand that some people think that the annual thing somewhere there in Belfast has most impact. I have however rarely followed that, being fed up with those recurring fightings and posings, and therefore I have not given very much attention to its details. The part played by W III was a detail, actually. The main news annually is the marching. Whereas William I is directly important, him founding the dynasty. Therefore, I would much appreciate that the disambiguation page be under William of Orange, and this guy's overinflated importance deflated somewhat. 62.78.105.43 21:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an English language encyclopaedia not the Dutch one where the link priority might well be different. William III of England is by far the best known "William of Orange" in the English speaking world. Not only because he is involved in Irish history and is mentioned in the news every year during the marching season (a mural,CNN: The marching season: A question of rights and wrongs), which puts him in the news every year, but because of his part in the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which is not only part of the British history syllabus, but is also frequently taught in history classes in the USA to help explain the roots of the U.S. revolution. For example try a Google seach on ["William of Orange" site:bbc.co.uk]. It returns 744 English pages from bbc.co.uk for "William of Orange". I would be interested to know if any of the pages mention the person you are talking about. BTW is it William I of Orange or William I of the Netherlands? Not only is William III of England the most common usage in English outside Wkipeda, but the majority of en.wikipedia links to William of Orange are about topics relating to this man. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then the majority of links are wrong :-). He is William III of Orange. The very first William of Orange was a Frankisk (or some claim Muslim.) ruler of a principality in Southern France in the 7th or 8th century (but he doesn't count in the I II III). After a lot of dynastic upheavals the name and land came in the possesion of the son of a smalltime German nobleman (16th century) and he became William I of Orange (the revolutionary). William I of the Netherlands is the first king of the Netherlands (19th century). He was a great great great nephew or something (not in dircet line descendant) of William I. So William III is the son of William II of Orange who was the grandson of William I. Hope this clarifies somethings. Chardon

William the Silent is, at least, of similar fame to this William of Orange. I think William of Orange ought to be a disambiguation page. William I of the Netherlands, btw, was previously William VI of Orange. At any rate, I think all of the Williams of Orange (I-VII, really) ought to be listed at William of Orange to disambiguate. We can fix links that are referring to someone specific. john k 19:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John, whatever we have at William of Orange, it should not be an article, but rather, a redirect. Why? To make it easier to find incorrect links (since that name is ambiguous). The argument is laid out in full at User:Jnc/Disambiguation, but in brief: if William of Orange is a redirect, and all the articles (including the dismabiguation) have other names, then a simple look at Special:Whatlinkshere/William of Orange allows one to quickly find all articles that have linked (ambiguosly, and incorrectly) to "William of Orange", and one can quickly fix them all to point to the correct place. That way, when one comes back 6 months later to do it again, one can be certain that all the links to "William of Orange" are new links, which have been incorrectly set to point there. Noel (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In which English speaking country is William the Silent as well known as King Bill? The redirect should stay where it is for the reasons I have stated above. Which in summary is common usage should be the guide. Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss this at Talk:William of Orange. But I would say that this person is the one generally referred to in English (this is, after all, the English Wikipedia) when speaking of "William of Orange". But I think the suggestion of a disambig has some merit, but I need to think about it some more. Noel (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether William the Silent is as well known as William III. Obviously, he is not. The question is whether the name "William of Orange" is sufficiently unambiguous that it should be a redirect. I think that William the Silent is sufficiently well known as "William of Orange" as to make a disambiguation page necessary. I wasn't aware that absolute equality was required. john k 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I did say I saw the argument for having it redir to the disambig (even though I needed to think about it)! The question, to me, is whether enough people come looking for one of the other "William of Orange"s to make it worth making all those people looking for this WoO go through a disambig page as their first stop (a point made to me recently by User:Niteowlneils here.) To put it more concretely, given that we have a link to William of Orange (disambiguation) at the top of this page, would we rather have:

1. N users take an extra hop through "William of Orange (disambiguation)" when they type in "William of Orange", looking for William III, versus
2. M users having to take an extra hop through "William III" when they type in "William of Orange", looking for one of the others?

Alas, while I don't have hard data on the ratio N:M, I think you can pretty much bet than N >> M. Noel (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that in a very, very tiresome discussion Philip Baird Shearer is trying to have this discussion spread to as many pages as he can, and propose as many silly alternatives as he can, except the ones proposed by others, which he has even been trying to suppress by long-range edit war. - I try to have the discussion at Talk:William of Orange, that's also where the vote is (although that vote is a bit "cumbersome"). --Francis Schonken 18:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record:

• I have not contributed to the this discussion on this page since the 7th of July. At which time the page William of Orange was directed here.
• when I realised on the 19th of August that Chardon had changed the redirect on the 19th July without mentioning here. (I was not watching that redirect page) I changed it back to what it had been up until the 19th July.
• As Chardon had commented when he changed the page on that talk page Talk:William of Orange, When I changed it back I commented on that page. A discourse between him and I started on that page.
• user:217.140.193.123 commented on the 22 August 2005 "The dispute present at Talk:William of Orange has gone too long now. Time to see how much support each of these contentions receive." and put in a request WP:RM. So I did not initiate a vote on this issue and did not think one was necessary so soon, as with only two of us debating it for only 4 days, I felt that we still had not finished talking it through.
• I moved the page to discuss the WP:RM request from Talk:William of Orange (disambiguation) onto Talk:William of Orange precisely so that the conversation was not spread over yet another page.

So now that I have explained the sequence of events I hope you appreciate that I am not "trying to have this discussion spread to as many pages as [I]can" quite the opposite. Further no one has yet come up with any evidence what so ever, that in English when the term "William of Orange" is used without qualification, that the person being referred to is not William III in the vast majority of cases. I think that the convesation should continue on Talk:William of Orange, so I will say no more in this section Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Important reforms

In 1964 William established the Bank of England.

Umm, is "1964" here a typo for "1694"? Bank of England does agree that it was founded in 1694, but says nothing of William's role, if any. However, back then, I imagine the King would most likely have had a role in such an action, even if he wasn't the originator. Noel (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

William Henry

William III (pax britannica) is rairly if ever known as William Henry (ie "William Henry, Prince Of Orange", as a translation from the Dutch "Willem Hendrik, Prins Van Oranje"). The name "William Henry" if applied to an English king is usually applied to William IV of England before he became king as he was given the title of "William Henry, Duke of Clarence" by his father (King George III).

Inside wikipedia "William III" could also be known as "William III, Prince of Orange" like his father William II, Prince of Orange and William I, Prince of Orange. So if we are to use any other title in the introduction it should be "William III, Prince of Orange" or "William III, Prince of Orange-Nassau", to be consistent with the other "William Prince of Orange named as listed in William of Orange (disambiguation) Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Death of William

"In 1702, William — who did not remarry — died of complications (pneumonia) from injuries (a broken collarbone), resulting from a fall off his sorrel mare." Is it just me or is this a needless complicated sentence? Why is necessary to desrcibe the horse in such detail? Why the not-remarry remark? I propose "In 1702, William died of pneumonia from a broken collarbone, resulting from a fall off his horse". 194.109.236.119 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Robbert-Jan

That doesn't really make sense. You don't get pneumonia from a broken collarbone. Some sort of change is in order, but not that particular change. john k 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

How about: In 1702, William died of pneumonia and from complications from injuries received (a broken collarbone) after falling from his horse. If needed the information about him remarrying (or not) can be added in as well. Prsgoddess187 12:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

John you are right, my suggestion doesn't make sense :) . Prsgoddess, your sentence suggests that the pneumonia is not a complicaton from the injury, which the orignal indicates it was. Maybe 'In 1702, William broke his collarbone from falling off his horse. This injury resulted in pneumonia, of which he died.' or something like that. Or another suggestion: "In 1702, William died of pneumonia, a complication from a broken collarbone, resulting from a fall off his horse". Whatever it will be, don't include the "sorrel mare" bit ;)

"Glorious Revolution" vs. "coup d'état"

What exactly is the point of the following sentence:

"Though the invasion and subsequent overthrow of James II is commonly known as the "Glorious Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

To clarify the issue, how would people view the following sentences:

"Though the rising against and subesquent overthrow of Alexander Kerensky is commonly known as the "Bolshevik Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

"Though the rising against and subesquent overthrow of Louis XVI is commonly known as the "French Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

Generally, successful political revolutions involve a seizure of governmental power (a coup d'état). If the revolutionaries do not seize power they will not have much of a revolution. The difference between a mere a coup d'état and a revolution does not concern the seizure of power but the changes to the political system. A coup d'état alone is merely the replacement of one ruler or set of rulers with another. The French Revolution involved much more than the removal and execution of Louis XVI. The Bolshevik Revolution involved much more than Lenin replacing Kerensky as leader of Russia.

The replacement of James II by William & Mary was only part of the Glorious Revolution. The importance of the Glorious Revolution was that it established that the King of England (and by extension Scotland & Ireland) could not rule against the wishes of his people. In order to gain the throne, William & Mary accepted numerous conditions imposed by Parliament. The Stuart kings (James I & VI, Charles I, Charles II, and James II & VII) claimed a Divine Right to rule that trumped the rights of the people. They were king because God gave them the throne. William & Mary, acquired the throne because Parliament gave it to them. They and every subsequent monarch down to and including Elizabeth II reigned because of an Act of Parliament. William & Mary and their successors accepted that their power was limited by law. Further they accepted that they had to share power with Parliament. Each of the preceding Stuart kings made attempts to rule without Parliament. After the Glorious Revolution, British monarchs abandoned any idea of ruling without the legislature. Prior to the Glorious Revolution, there were long periods without a meeting of Parliament. In contrast, Parliament has met annually, with frequent elections, since the Glorious Revolution. This was a massive change in the fundamental principles underlying royal authority in the British Isles.

--ThomasK107 09:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps coup d'etat is not the right word (foreign occupation would be better) but it certainly describes what happened a lot better then the Dutch propaganda you're quoting. The replacement of James II by a ruler more friendly to Dutch interests had long been the goal of William III foreign policy. James II had supported Louis XIV wars against the Dutch Republic and weakening France by removing one of its allies would benefit Holland. After the conquest William had to bargain with the English because he didn't have enough troops to occupy England and fight the French but with some psychological warfare and propaganda he managed to extract get a good deal of what he wanted from the English (removing one of Frances key allies, English troops (though not completely trustworthy. there are some famous examples of English treachery from this period) etcetc), including being made a king. Chardon 20:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't quoting anyone, hence the absence of quotation marks. :) (I know what you meant. I am feeling pedantic today.) I was summarizing the standard English and American understanding of the Glorious Revolution. The importance of the Glorious Revolution in history is that it changed the balance of power between king and parliament. Since William III and his successors accepted the change instead of fighting for their divine rights like the Stuart kings, the stage was set for the development of genuine parliamentary democracy where real control of affairs passed from the king to ministers enjoying parliamentary support. That took over a century. The reasons why William III wanted to be king and the English/Scottish wanted to be rid of James II are less important that the radical transformation in the political system that followed from the deals the various parties made to secure their objectives. When earlier kings made deals they did not like, they immediately set about undermining them. With the Glorious Revolution, the deals that made William king stuck. Parliament could thus make deals with other kings that slowly changed the unwritten constitution. To say that the Glorious Revolution was a coup d'état or a foreign invasion is to miss its real importance. William III was not the first English king to invade England with local support and take the throne. Henry IV, Edward IV, Henry VII all did the same thing. In addition, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Edward III, and Richard III, all took the throne in violation of the rights of another with an equal or better claim to rule. The difference between those cases and William III/Glorious Revolution is that the earlier "illegal" transfers of the crown resulted merely in a change in the occupant of the throne. Henry VII ruled England in much the same way as Richard III. The balance of power with Parliament and the fundamental structure of government remained the same. With William III, a fundamental shift began that resulted in the Parliament replacing the crown as the most power institution of government. I do not think there is any question that William III wanted to have a friendly government ruling England. That is the reason for his marriage to Charles II's neice. By 1688, he certainly had reason to expect that the crown would eventually pass to his wife in view of James II's inability to father a legitimate male heir. The healthy birth of the Old Pretender must have been a shock and a disappointment. The Glorious Revolution is really not about William's reasons for taking the throne or Parliament's reasons for accepting him. The important point is the long-term change in English (and ultimately British) politics.--ThomasK107 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

William III intention was not to change the English constitution/structure of government. He wanted to rule much in the same way as his predeccesors did. The structure of government did change but that was more by accident then by design. So seen from the perspective of William his action was a coup d´etat/occupation and the his justifications propaganda (or glorious lies as an American neocon would put it) but I agree with you, seen from the perspective of English constitutionl history, that what happened after the invasion was much bigger then a mere coup d´etat. However since this is an article about William III I believe the sentence you have problems with is appropriate. Chardon 10:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to time just now to go into depth on this subject, but I don't think it could be considered a coup d'état. Incidentally, it is not listed on the coup page, whereas Pride's Purge. That page defines it an overthrow of government through constitutional means. What made the Revolution in this instance distinct that it was by constitutional means, that it was approved by Parliament. The sentence seems to me quite unfair a little like Jacobite propaganda. William Quill 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the below proposed modification and addendum to the offending sentence. I think it captures aspects of what was said above:

... it was a coup d'état, with one faction successfully deposing James II and supporting William of Orange. Of fundamental constitutional consequence was that the crown was offered under terms that ended claims of divine right, circumscribed the powers of the monarch, and firmly established a system of parliamentary constitutional monarchy that survives uninterrupted to the present.

Yellowdesk 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have dropped-off three months ago, but the issue should be decided. The passage disputes the validity of the term "Glorious Revolution", and is therefore POV. As such, I am deleting it.

For the record, the text quoted at the top of this section has gotten worse by nearly doubling in length. It now reads as follows:

Though the invasion and subsequent overthrow of James II is commonly known as the "Glorious Revolution", it was more nearly a coup d'état, with one faction ultimately successful in deposing James II and installing William of Orange in power.

As the GR was more or less a bloodless overthrow, it does not fit the strictest definition of a coup: a violent overthrow. Regardless of whether a coup is violent or not, what difference does it make? How does its being a coup change why it is called the "Glorious Revolution"?

Yes, obviously, one ruler unwillingly went out because another wanted to come in. The same was true of the American and French revolutions. The language of the quoted text sets "Glorious Revolution" and coup d'etat as mutually exclusive. I see no reason why that would be true.

Chardon said that because from William's point of view it was a mere takeover, the sentence as originally put is appropriate. That would make sense if the sentence said something like, "It was never William's intention to bring about the Glorious Revolution, for him it was merely a coup d'etat, albeit in a kingdom asking for a coup." Rather, the sentence states it as fact that what happened was not really a Glorious Revolution. That is POV, not fact, and therefore should be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The gin connection?

An Amsterdam bartender told me that William III brought the first bottle of gin to Britain. Even if this is a folk-legend, it may merit mention. Wish I had time to check how pervasive the story is... Ellsworth 02:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he introduced the first bottle, but gin certainly became popular under his and Mary's reign. William banned imports of French brandy (which was quite expensive in England at the time) as a result of the tensions between France and the Netherlands and Englishmen soon began to produce the spirit, which had been a favourite tipple amongst the Dutch for quite some time (and William was quite a fan of it - so probably did introduce it to Britain). It was so cheap by the end of the 17thC (compared to other spirits), that it got one of the names it's usually referred to today, "Mother's Ruin", as it fuelled poverty and prostitution and was apparently a cause of many abortions. Craigy (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Gin bears a close similarity to Dutch Genever; it's very likely that one brought about the other. 193.71.38.142 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Elite Penguin Knights

Though my knowledge of the subject is a little sketchy, this doesn't ring a bell from history class. Strangely it doesn't show up in edits (final paragraph of 'Glorious Revolution' sub-heading), so I can't delete it. Perhaps someone more technically savvy than myself can sort this out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.71.38.142 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Fort Amsterdam named for William during (separate) Dutch and English reigns?

I was wondering if you could take a list of names for Fort Amsterdam (which was the first fort and administrative center of New York City until after the American Revolution)? The Dutch recaptured the fort in 1673 and named it Fort Willem Hendrick (and renamed the city to New Orange). The British recaptured it again in 1674 and named it back to original British name Fort James and then Fort William. From my reading of history the Dutch Willem Hendick and the later William would be in fact the same William III of England. It's an interesting quirk if that's the case. I can't find any references on where the Fort Willem name came from. Many thanks. Americasroof 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems plausible, but then again, a lot of Dutch stadholders were called William, without real sources there is no way of being sure.Rex 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, I found my references and he is the same guy. If I read this article a little more carefully I would have seen that Willem Hendrick was already mentioned! Thanks again! Americasroof 13:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A minor detail: the British did not recapture but regain the fort in 1674.--MWAK 18:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

length of article

article is getting too long. Feel free to delete details in it.Johncmullen1960 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

name "William III of England" is incorrect

The first sentence says: "William III of England (The Hague, 14 November 1650 – Kensington Palace, 8 March 1702; also known as William II of Scotland and William III of Orange". To my knowledge this is incorrect, it should be "King William III of England", "William III, King of England", or only "(King) William III". William III of England (without 'King' in the name) is a Wikipedia definition, not the name he was known as. Demophon 10:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

The encyclopaedia Britannica describes him as "William III" only and MSN Encarta as "William III (of England)", not William III of England, since this is incorrect. Demophon 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is wrong, shouldn't the name of the article be changed? Wouldn't that be more annoyingly wrong than a sentence in the content? I recommend citing the source of the name to rule out any dispute. As stated above, "To my knowledge this is incorrect", does not really indicate that it is an absolute factual error. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"William III of England" is correct as it is the established way on Wikipedia to describe English kings, e.g. James I of England, James II of England, etc. "William III" on its own is incorrect.--Johnbull 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Regal Number

Can someone clear something up for me? Was William both William III, Prince of Orange and William III, King of England independently of one another? What I mean is, is the fact that he was both "III" of Orange and England just coincidence, or was it set up that way somehow? Thanks. 75.75.110.235 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

William III was the third king in the line of English kings with the name William. Also he was the third William in the Dutch family with the name Willem, or in English, William. So the fact that in both the lineage of English kings, as well the Dutch family Orange-Nassau, he was named William III is pure coincidence. In fact, in Scotland he was named King William II not III. Demophon 06:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

what did he do as king —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.98.68 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Dutch sources say he left early November, had to return twice to Hellevoetsluis. Backed by a strong easterly, which was soon dubbed the 'Protestant wind', he landed on November 15th. Taksen (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Offices

What does "William II held, in official feudal order, the office of stadtholder of Guelders, Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, and Overijssel." Specifically, what does "official feudal order" mean? -Rrius (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather obscure. And the sentence is ambiguous. Were there several offices or just one over several provinces?--Gazzster (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Guelders was a former duchy, and so first in the feudal order. Holland was second in that order, but the main player. Taksen (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "official feudal order" is terribly meaningful. Perhaps "William held the office of stadtholder of, in descending order of importance, Guelders..." would be better. The best option may be to simply delete "in official feudal order" because it doesn't add anything substantial to the article. -Rrius (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sucession Boxes

The succession box title English royalty, should be changed to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

This states that he became King of Ireland in Feb 1689. This is not true in any real sense, since in reality James remained King of Ireland until 1690/91, & was so recognized by the Irish Parliament. The English Parliament proclaimed him King of Ireland, but then it also proclaimed him King of France. 14:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

No mention of the fact he was a suspected homosexual ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.45.71 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole section on it.[1] DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true - there is. Although the evidence is inconclusive. The text was more extensive but it was agreed to trim back a little. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just received the Van der Zee book in the mail, so I'll add their take on the rumours soon. I want to finish citing the rest of the article to Troost and Van der Kiste first, though, since they're library books and have to go back soon. Coemgenus 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome this if it helps shed more light. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I read that section and was a bit perturbed that it is titled Homosexual Accusations. This doesn't sound right since it implies there is something wrong with being gay (you usually aren't accused of nice things). Put it another way, if he had been fond of racing pigeons but kept it quiet, we wouldn't title a section Pigeon-fancier Accusations. I was going to put Suspicions but that isn't much better. Anyone have a better idea? --Oscar Bravo (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that section title, but it does make sense. In the 1690s, when the accusations were made, it was a crime, and most of English society did not approve of it. "Accusations" might be inappropriate for a modern political figure's article, but for a man of the 17th century, it is quite accurate. Coemgenus 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was me who originally added that heading. It seemed to me that a lot of the evidence had emerged from those one would term as William's enemies. That does not mean that the suggestions were false (or indeed true); but they were made with the intention of bringing notice to a perceived defect in Williams' character. We would not, of course, view the issue in the same way now. But good question. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that this article is now in the "LBGT royalty" category. Isn't this a bit anachronistic? If all the rumours of King Billy's behaviour be true, then he liked to have sex with men and women alike. But did anyone in the 17th or 18th century call himself gay or bisexual? In addition, William never acknowledged those rumours, and his friends denied them.

I think he probably did have some sexual relationships with men, but calling him gay or bisexual seems like calling him a Peelite or a Thatcherite -- it's applying a modern term to a centuries-old person who never comtemplated our modern definitions or world-view. Coemgenus 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point. Neither he, nor contemporaries would have used the label LGBT - it simply wouldn't have been understood. This is absolutely right. However, for the purposes of this wikipedia article I still think it offers the best approximation. We today would understand or identify William's behaviour as an approximation for LGBT. That's not to say that he was (or was not) attracted to the same sex (the evidence is interesting, raises questions but is ultimately inconclusive); but that the article contains enough information to be of relevance to the LGBT category. This is consistent with other articles under the category - Edward II, James I etc - all of these individuals would not have labelled themselves LGBT; but it is we who label them in order to usefully categorise them for discussion. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The category is defined as "shown to be gay, bisexual or transgender". That does not apply in this case as he has not been shown to be gay or bisexual. As you yourself say, it is "inconclusive". Consequently, the category should go. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The description is actually "shown by a verifiable, reliable source to be LGBT". Presumably in this instance the sources are Troost and van der Zee, amongst others? Isn't the point of categorisation, however, ultimately to make it easier for wikipedia readers to look up articles of interest? Someone wanting to see which royals were likely to have been LGBT could then access the list and look at what the text had to say. I would argue that there is more than enough under this article to warrant such analysis - in an attempt to make wikipedia easier to use for readers. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death

We seem to be comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended) here. At his birth, the Netherlands was using the Julian calendar. At his death, England was also still using the Julian calendar. Yet in the lead para we show his Gregorian birth date, but his Julian death date, which make him appear to have lived 11 days less than he actually did. Surely, it would be preferable to have both dates in Julian, or both in Gregorian, with an explanatory note in either case. That is, either (Julian) 4 Nov 1650-8 March 1702, or (Gregorian) 14 Nov 1650-19 March 1702. Even better, something like:

• 14 November [O.S. 4 November] 1650 - 19 March [O.S. 8 March] 1702. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here: the province of Holland (unlike other Dutch provinces, like Friesland) already introduced the Gregorian calender in December, 1582 (December 15 became December 25, 1582 according to many sources I found; see e.g. Gregorian_calendar#Adoption_in_Europe. So the Gregorian birthdate is correct (as he was born in The Hague, Holland), though the conversion to Julian dates is defensible with the explanatory note.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Ereunetes. The note is helpful, but doesn’t go as far as it should, and is misleading in some respects.

• It talks of the Julian calendar being used “in the Netherlands”, when, as you’ve pointed out, that was true only for certain parts of the the Netherlands, although these did happen to include William’s birthplace in the province of Holland.
• It does not fully clarify whether his death date “8 March 1702” is a Julian or Gregorian date. It would be quite defensible for a reader to come to the conclusion that he lived for 51 years 114 days (14 Nov 1650 – 8 March 1702) when he in fact lived for 51 years 125 days (14 Nov 1650 – 19 March 1702).
• It talks of the 10-day gap between the calendars in 1650, but not about the 11-day gap in 1702.
• It talks of “the general adoption of the Gregorian calendar in the UK in 1753”. The year was 1752, not 1753; and it wasn’t “the UK”, which didn’t come into existence till 1801. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain at that time, and Ireland was still a separate kingdom.

To make this clearer, I’d like to expand the note as follows:

• During William's lifetime, two calendars were in use in Europe: the Julian or 'Old Style' in Britain and parts of Eastern Europe, and the Gregorian or 'New Style' elsewhere, including William’s birthplace in the province of Holland and some other parts of the Netherlands. At William's birth, Gregorian dates were ten days ahead of Julian dates: thus William was born on 14 November 1650 by the Gregorian calendar, but on 4 November 1650 by the Julian. Moreover, the English new year began on 25 March (the feast of the Incarnation) and not on 1 January (until the general adoption of the Gregorian calendar in Great Britain and Ireland in 1752). At William's death, Gregorian dates were now eleven days ahead of Julian dates. He died on 8 March 1702 by the Julian calendar still applying in Britain, but on 19 March 1702 by the Gregorian calendar. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing information?

Dear dr Kierman, the article on William III has almost no references to Amsterdam mayors, who played an important role in the financing William's journey to England, or artisans, who propagated William. I was hoping you or someone else would put them in the text or take notice. They are not loose, there is certainly some information on William (who by the way also called himself the king of France) and Mary. There is no paragraph in the lemma on William or Mary and the arts. Something I miss. Taksen (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Pasted from my talk page. DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on Taksen's concerns that the article lacks information on this aspect? DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

These links were removed by DrKiernan: Coenraad van Beuningen, Nicolaes Witsen, Romeyn de Hooghe and Daniel Marot. The article is on De Hooghe is not very elaborate, but there is more to tell about him. Simon Schama published a lot of drawings by De Hooghe in his book The Emberrassment of Richness. Also the physician Govert Bidloo is not mentioned. Taksen (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Insert? or new Article?

I have a list of just over 50 British Nobles and Gentry, who deserted James into Williams camp. Insert? or new Article?Stephen2nd (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely separate article. You should link to it in Glorious revolution, too. Coemgenus 01:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done: List of James II deserters to William of Orange, will link Article to James II and Glorious revolution asap. Thanks. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Stadtholder no "regnal title"

This is actually a criticism of the "pretty" new template that one finds in many articles about members of the House of Orange (and cadet branches) and that gives "stadtholder" of sundry provinces as a "regnal title." This is arguably an anachronism, at least before 1747 (and I would maintain after that year also). I don't deny that "Prince of Orange" (at least up to 1713) and "Count/Reichsfuerst of Nassau" were regnal titles. But stadtholder was an appointive office, even when it was made hereditary (though this seems a contradiction, but making it hereditary did not change the constitutional position). I don't want to refight the Orangist/Staatsgezinde wars, but absent proof that William III (or any of the other stadtholders for that matter) were ever made sovereign, I think it gives the wrong impression to convey this dignity on them, even if only in the form of a misbegotten template.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ereunetes is quite right. The best proof is that twice in history a number of Dutch provinces, amongst them Holland (arguably the most important province of the Dutch Republic), decided not to appoint a new stadtholder after the death of the previous one (First Stadtholderless Era: 1650-1672; Second Stadtholderless Era: 1702-1747). So "regnal title" is quite wrong for the stadtholder's office. Skuipers (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; William's title of Prince of Orange made him a sovereign over that city-state, but his title of Stadtholder did not make him a sovereign over the five province for which he held the title. Coemgenus 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad we seem to agree:-) But what about drawing the consequences? I hate to mess up other people's pretty boxes. What I did on the page for Willem Frederik of Nassau-Dietz was to bring the stadtholder box before the regnal-title box, directly under the personal-data box. That may work here, too. But it may raise a storm, because it might be interpreted as somehow putting stadtholder before king. So maybe an acceptable alternative would be to put the stadtholder box below all the regnal titles, but appropriately separated from the regnal title box. However, I don't know how to do that.

Aditionally, in all the boxes (also the British royalty box) William IV is given as the successor in the stadtholder office. In reality there was a 45-year hiatus, known as the Second Stadtholderless Period (someone still will have to write that article; it is long overdue). William's successor in his regnal titles on the Continent of course was either John William Friso, Prince of Orange, according to his Will, or Frederick I of Prussia (I just noted that the article on Friso has the story wrong; that cries out for an edit :-) according to Frederick Henry's Will. The dispute was settled in the 1730s by a partition treaty between the two rival houses, which in part gave the title Prince of Orange to both claimants. So, if we want to have the data right, this also should be reflected in the boxes.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can deal with the hiatus by using {{s-vac}}. – Ilse@ 02:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though it took me a very long time to figure out how to refrain from messing up the whole box. In any case, I managed to shift the stadtholders rows to the less-offending political-office box, which is historically more correct.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

William's role in the lynching of De Witt

I think a slightly more extensive discussion of William's role after the lynching of the De Witt brothers, however controversial, might be in order. I am not proposing to accuse him of complicity before the fact, but his shielding of the perpetrators, even rewarding people like Tichelaar (pension), Van Banchem (baljuw of The Hague), and Kievit (Pensionary of Rotterdam) raised eyebrows at the time and point to being an accessory after the fact. I mean, we should see the person, warts and all. It is a more important subject than his alleged homosexuality.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The topic of who had sex with whom certainly draws more than its share of editors, but William's involvement in De Witt's lynching is certainly more relevant to the course of history than whatever went on in a man's bedroom. If you have some information to add, by all means do so -- it's a wiki, after all. Coemgenus 12:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have added a paragraph, with citations, in what I hope is a non-sensational fashion.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

References

The sections Death, Style and arms, Ancestors, and In popular culture need additional references, because they currently fail WP:FACR #1c. – Ilse@ 14:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have entered a reference to the new article Second Stadtholderless Period which covers the same material more extensively, and contains all required citations. Maybe this article could also be referenced in the several boxes where erroneously William IV is mentioned as the successor of William III as stadtholder. There is a 45-year hiatus.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean wikilinks or other internal Wikipedia references, but references to reliable sources. Maybe you can also add the source references that were used for the Second Stadtholderless Period article? – Ilse@ 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added citations to the "Death" section. I am not enough of an expert on the Arms and Popular culture sections to add citations there. Ancestors is a box--Ereunetes (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work. – Ilse@ 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The sections Style and arms, Ancestors, and In popular culture still need attention. – Ilse@ 09:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heir apparent?

While cleaning up the historical mess in the title boxes I noticed another apparent howler: In the English royalty box William is apparently listed (unless I misunderstand completely) as "heir apparent" to his wife Mary between their accession to the throne as joint-rulers and her death in 1694. Surely, William was king of England the whole time between February 13, 1689 and his own death on March 8/19, 1702? Another, maybe interesting point for nitpickers: there seems to have been a real "interregnum" between James' "abdication" and William's and Mary's accession. Shouldn't that be reflected in the box? :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what whoever wrote that meant was that William would remain king if Mary died first (as he did) so he was, in a certain sense, his wife's heir. That said, the idea of a succession box for the next-in-line to an office is sort of silly, especially since William and Mary showed that the succession is not exactly written in stone. Coemgenus 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"King Billy"

It says they called him that in N Ireland and Scotland. Did they call him that because they liked him or was it meant to be a insult to him?Bolinda (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)