Talk:Monarchy of the Netherlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Ottawa[edit]

Which member of the Dutch royal family was it who was born in Ottawa? - montréalais

Princess Margriet (the youngest sister of Queen Beatrix) was born 1943/01/19 in Ottawa, when the family were refugees in Canada due to the German occupation of the Netherlands. Jeronimo

Interestingly though, she was not born in Canada, as the wing of the hospital where Princess Juliana was giving birth was officialy ceded to the Netherlands for the purpose of this event, and presumably returned to Canada afterwards. Lokimaros 10:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not ceded to the Netherlands, but simply declared to be extraterritorial by the Canadian government. See Princess Margriet of the Netherlands. MrTree 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

She was not her youngest sister: Christina is. She was born in the Netherlands after the war

See http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/UK/royal_house/members.html (the English homepage of the Dutch royal house)--branko

Republicans[edit]

Are there any Republicans in the Netherlands? I know for instance there are quite a few Republicans in England (and probably even more than will publicly admit it -- it appears to me that a significant portion of Labour MPs have Republican sympathies, but the Blair Government would like to avoid this being overly noticed, lest they offend the royalists in the general public.)

Very interesting question ! Only a few are confessed Republicans. Many have Republican sympathies, but do not care too much. Even recently deceased Prince Claus of the Netherlands called the Netherlands a republican monarchy in an interview he gave for German (his home country) television. The House of Orange-Nassau ruled the Dutch Republic (in episodes) for ages before the Netherlands became a kingdom under their rule. The Dutch monarchy is less distant from the public than e.g. the British monarchy. In daily practice many feel that a republic is more democratic in theory, but may be more autocratic in practice. For instance the United States and France have much more power centralised in the person of the president than the dutch government has in the person of the prime minister. Formal power of the queen is very limited.
I may add some of this to the current page. Erik Zachte

Adding to Erik's answer (that's all correct), one or more of the smaller political parties have raised the issue of abolishing the monarchy this or last year (was it D'66?), but without much approving reactions. The last serious call for abolition was done at the end of World War I, when socialist/communist Troelstra called for a "socialist revolution" (after the Soviet example, no doubt). This, too, was a rather futile attempt. Jeronimo
I have to disagree! There are many Dutch parties with republican tendencies, however the nature of of Dutch coalition politics makes it impossible to form a government with strong republican policies. Statements like "In daily practice many feel that a republic is more democratic in theory, but may be more autocratic in practice" are of little value as the opposite is just as true. I am also very interested what the justification of a statement like "The Dutch monarchy is less distant from the public than e.g. the British monarchy" is based upon, as I do not know of any formal measure. The formal power of the King (or Queen) in The Netherlands is quite substantial, especially during the formation of coalition-governments after elections (not even mentioning economic influence due to their exemption of taxation). (Nickdenuijl (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
There are also some figures mentioned in the article, that I would be curious to know where they came from. I think that the reality is much more that most people in the Netherlands do not care much about the monarchy or the Royal familly and that teh colour orange is mostly associated with teh national football team. However there is a minority of people (mostly in the hard-core protestant sections of society) that do care a lot and support the monarchy; the rest of the country does not care enough end it. (Nickdenuijl (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
There is the Republikeins Genootschap but it is a very small association, although they have/had several prominent members, including Pim Fortuyn. See a list of members here. SpeakFree (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg[edit]

This articles states that Luxembourg became independent in 1890 because of the accession of Wilhelmina. The Luxembourg and History of Luxembourg articles both give an earlier date 1835 and 1867. Which is true? Danny

I think the following was the case:

Luxembourg became virtually independent in 1867, (Treaty of London, AFAIK), but the head of state would remain the Dutch monarch; sort of like the Queen of England is the head of Australia and Canada. When William III died in 1890, the accession rules in Luxembourg required a male heir, while the Dutch rules allowed for Wilhelmina (through Emma at first) to inherit the title. Adolf of Nassau was then appointed Grand Duke of Luxembourg, ending the "two nations, one monarch" situation. Jeronimo

Thanks. Danny

Pluralization?[edit]

The article currently treats "the Netherlands" as a plural (as in "The Netherlands have been"). Is this standard? Google finds twice as many hits for "The Netherlands has," and Google News (hich can usually be counted on to be more correct) contains nearly eight times as many hits for "The Netherlands has." Asbestos | Talk 09:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the Netherlands itself official usage would be to treat "the Netherlands" as the plural it is, but the nations name in Dutch is "Nederland", a singular. Of course "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is singular. Lokimaros 15:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dates?[edit]

The dates of the reign of William I on this page are 1815-1840, but on William I of the Netherlands they claim his reign was 1813-1843. One of these should be corrected. Asbestos | Talk 09:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both dates (1813 and 1815) are more or less correct; I hope my addition on this page explains it a bit; a full explanation is in the William I of the Netherlands article. Eugene van der Pijll 09:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


William I[edit]

I've always heard that king William I was not a direct descendant of William the silent, those died ou in a paternal line when stadholder-king William III died in the early 18th century. He is a direct male-line descendant of one of William the silent's brothers I believe, although in a female line he is directly descendant to William the silent. Does anyone know it exactly?Knijert 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is only about the monarchy, which was founded in 1815; see Prince of Orange for earlier details. In short, you are correct. Eugene van der Pijll 15:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Juliana[edit]

The section about Juliana ends in what appears to be a Spanish sentence: "y miroouu kiere ser reina!", which I can't seem to fully translate through online translators. I would suggest someone with the necessary knowledge translates it, or, if they know what it says, removes it if spurious. Lokimaros 15:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its just vandalism (it had typical signs of vandalism it was not capitalized properly and it was entered in a separate line of code, without making a separate line of text). So I've removed it. - C mon 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Willem-Alexander[edit]

The article uses the expression "crown prince", but in the Dutch monarchy no such title/position exists. The term is "the Prince(ss) of Orange" instead -- as opposed to "a Prince(ss) of the Netherlands" and "Prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau". Lokimaros 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The title Prince of Orange for the heir apparent was constitutional until 1983. Willem Alexander had already acquired it by then and keeps it to this day. There are no rules for the title of the heir apparent now, although it is believed that the Orange title will be bestowed on a future heir apparent by Royal decree. The title Crown Princess has in the past been used (and mentioned in the constitution) for heirs presumptive. However all recipients of the Orange title, keep their title's of Prince / Princess of the Netherlands and other titles they may have. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The title of Prince of Orange for the heir to the throne is actually regulated by law (Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis, 2002). The law says:
"De vermoedelijke opvolger van de Koning draagt de titel van Prins (Prinses) van Oranje.
There is no need then for a royal decree. Upon King Willem-Alexander's accession for example, Princess Catharina-Amalia automatically became "de Prinses van Oranje". The heir to throne also has the title of "Prins(Prinses) der Nederlanden" (Art.8) and "Prins(Prinses) van Oranje-Nassau" (Art.9). 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
161.24.19.112 (talk) You are exactly right. The title Prince of Orange disappeared from the constitution in 1983. However it reappeared in the law that you mention in 2002 I think. Had a succession occurred in the meantime a Royal decree would have been necessary. But not anymore. I was not aware of that at the time I wrote my earlier comment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Over templated[edit]

IMHO this article appears to be 'overtemplated'. Ie the templates and boxes used take more space then the body text. This is a problem for layout. Please fix. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are the powers that the Queen can preform without the approval of the parliment or the prime minister? (like the president's power to give pardons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.164.38 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything she does in that respect, has to be countersigned by a minister. She can however take the initiative in forming a council of ministers (as long as parliament doesn't take that task on itself, which until now has never happened). The result however only becomes valid when countersigned by the incoming prime minister and she will be in some trouble when the sitting parliament disagrees. (that last happened in 1939). It was however (as is constitutionally correct) blamed on the bad advice she received back then. The reputation of the Queen was not damaged too much at the time (in view of her war role in the years after.) If such a thing would happen again though, the present queen's reputation would be impaired. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not enough information on the institution of monarchy[edit]

This article suffers from a lack of information about what is the role of the monarch in contemporary Dutch life, what are the customs and protocol, what are the prerogatives of the monarch, what is the public attitude toward the monarchy, etc.

Also, there are biographical snippets on the three female monarchs but not on the three Williams.

I wish this article were a little more informative!

Tiss McVeigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.16.177 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch queen, Queen of the Netherlands, king verses queen[edit]

Hello Ben! Great job in fleshing out the article! Constructive criticism: May I suggest recasting some phrases for a more international audience?

It is quite well and understood that the use of 'King' within the Dutch constitution is to be understood as gender neutral. However, this English language wiki is focused for an international worldwide audience. Therefore, the use of a lowercase q for "queen Beatrix" is incorrect. In all cases, including in use on the the Dutch Royal House website, Queen Beatrix's title is capitalized even when referring to the queen in her role as head-of-state. The website, nor any source that I can see, qualifies the statement: This practice sometimes carries over into written language in Dutch, when the capitalized word "King" is used to distinguish the role of monarch from the person (who is then referred to as the uncapitalized "king" or "queen"). This may be a true nuiance within the Dutch language, but it does not have an English language counterpart. In fact, the only time when the title king or queen should be capitalized on Wiki should be when it is part of a formal title... Queen of the Netherlands and Queen Beatrix, verses the Dutch queen or Dutch kings and queens (monarch's in general).

Furthermore, while within the Netherlands (or England, Spain, ect) it is correct for local media write out and capitalize The Queen (when it is understood which queen they are speaking of), it is incorrect for Wiki as the title not capitalized except when used with a name or in the formal title. Queen of the United Kingdom verses English kings and queens, for example.

Otherwise, Ben, I think your doing a great job fleshing the article out!!! Keep up the good work! I do recommend more in text citations, however. Especially in the segments such as "Positions of other members of the Royal House and royal family" and "The monarchy in Dutch society". There seems to be alot of opinion statements in those sections that should be backed up with sources.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Corrected caps♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Still many sections of this important article with virtually no citations (or indeed, none whatsoever): "Positions of other members of the royal house and royal family" and the whole of "The monarchy in Dutch society". Much of the latter reads like POV, even if it isn't. Davidships (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Death, abdication and removal[edit]

I changed the language in this section. As it stood it seemed that ceding royal authority or being removed from it temporarily means ceding the throne or being removed from it.... ceasing to be monarch so to speak. Since that is not the case I adjusted the language... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions where a guy could get some opinions from Dutch people on the queen abdicating the throne? Curiosity hits! MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 20:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Membership of the Dutch Royal House: Corrections to the Article[edit]

The line of succession includes all members of the Royal Family who are not further removed from the current monarch than the third degree of consanguinity, i.e. children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, brothers/sisters, nephews/nieces, and uncles/aunts. The Royal House on the other hand includes only those members of the Royal Family in the line of succession who are related to the monarch up to two degrees of consanguinity. Hence, the children of Prince Constantijn for example are still in the line of succession, but ceased to be members of the Royal House once King Willem-Alexander acceded to the throne (note: they are related in the second degree of consanguinity to former Queen Beatrix, but are related only in the third degree to King Willem-Alexander).

Princess Margriet is an exception. As King Willem-Alexander's aunt (thus related to the monarch in the third degree of consanguinity), she should be in the line of succession, but should not be a member of the Royal House. like Prince Constantijn's children. However, a particular clause in the 2002 Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis allows all people who were adult members of the Royal House at the time the law was enacted to remain so as long as they are in the line of succession. The application of the same clause allowed Princess Margriet's children, Prince Maurits and Prince Bernhard, to remain members of the Royal House while Queen Beatrix still occupied the throne since, as the Queen's nephews, they were still in line of succession. When their cousin, King Willem-Alexander, acceded to the throne, they lost their position in the line of succession (being now related to the monarch in the fourth, rather than the third degree of consanguinity) and, therefore, also ceased to be members of the Royal House.


The transcription of the relevant clauses of the law is shown below.

Artikel 1
Met de Koning als hoofd van het koninklijk huis zijn daarvan lid:
a. zij die krachtens de Grondwet de Koning kunnen opvolgen en deze niet verder bestaan dan in de tweede graad van bloedverwantschap; [...]


Artikel 3
1.Lid van het koninklijk huis blijven zij die op het tijdstip van inwerkingtreding van deze wet meerderjarig lid zijn van het koninklijk huis en krachtens de Grondwet de Koning kunnen opvolgen. Zij behouden hun lidmaatschap zolang zij krachtens de Grondwet de Koning kunnen opvolgen.

161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange. That would mean that the King's great-grandchild that is eligeble to succeed is not a member of the Royal House. Furthermore it is peculiar that the membership of the Royal House is dependent upon a degree of consanguinity in the lineal descendants of the King, while the succession to the throne knows no such limitation where the descendants of the King are concerned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It's odd indeed. The limitation of the line of succession to the third degree of consanguinity is in the constitution of the Netherlands (Art. 25), whereas the membership of the Royal House is regulated by ordinary law. I suppose the government introduced the second-degree rule in 2002 to limit the number of members of the Royal House. In any case, given the tendency of Dutch monarchs to abdicate in their 60s or 70s, it is highly unlikely that a reigning monarch will have great-grandchildren in his/her line of succession. King Willem-Alexander for example currently has only 8 possible successors (3 daughters, a brother, 2 nieces, 1 nephew, and an aunt). Queen Beatrix had 11 possible successors (two sons, six grandchildren, a sister, and two nephews).
Artikel 25
Het koningschap gaat bij overlijden van de Koning
krachtens erfopvolging over op zijn wettige
nakomelingen, waarbij het oudste kind voorrang
heeft, met plaatsvervulling volgens dezelfde
regel. Bij gebreke van eigen nakomelingen gaat
het koningschap op gelijke wijze over op de
wettige nakomelingen eerst van zijn ouder, dan van
zijn grootouder, in de lijn van erfopvolging,
voor zover de overleden Koning niet
verder bestaand dan in de derde graad van
bloedverwantschap'

161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Some things make you wonder. When Willem-Alexander succeeded to the throne, his cousins Maurits and Bernard jr. lost their right to succeed the King directly. Their mother (aunt of the King) however didn't. But when (in some bizarre and probably tragic set of circumstances) the present King is succeeded by his aunt Princess Margriet, her sons that are now out of the line of succession and no longer members of the Royal House, would return to the line of succession and to the membership of the Royal House. Also their children, who were never part of both, would become eligible in both capacities. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Formation of the Government[edit]

This section should be rewritten, given that the rules have changed so significantly within the last years. It is contradictory that it in the beginning puts such strong emphasis on the role of the King as not simply ceremonial (based on a source from 2000), yet later briefly mentions the changes made by the States-General which renders that firm assertion as obsolete (or a monarchist-POV no longer supported by facts). The section should of course briefly mention the former procedure, but the present order should be the focus.RicJac (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monarchy of the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)