Talk:William II of the Netherlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

I removed the sentence about William being offered the throne of Belgium but declining under pressure of his father. I couldn't find any corroboration. Perhaps someone will reinstate it. This entry needs some trustworthy external links. Wetman 10:13, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Has someone deleted this article? Apart from anything else whoever did it spelt ass hole wrong!!! --62.6.139.10 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

William was not commanding any Dutch troops at Quatre-Bras and Waterloo. He acted as English officer, probably because the Duke of Wellington did not completely trust the Dutch forces. Mvdleeuw 10:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I only know of this bloke from Sharpe's Waterloo. Was he really an incompetent buffoon, and if so what did he do (or fail to do)? Lupine Proletariat 11:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't suppose he was a buffoon, but on the other hand: I don't think he was the greatest of generals, being rather conceited. Then again: he was brave enough to get himself hurt. Mvdleeuw 18:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the sentence "He was considered a hero although his military incompetence was the cause of several critical errors." a bit problematic. This is largely based on the english theory of the incompetent or cowardly dutch and belgian troops. Prince William certainly was no military genius, but I'm not so sure he was responsible the blunders he is generally credited with (namely the forward slope deployment of some dutch-belgian troops at Waterloo. In a way this is a POV issue as the position of William the bufoon or the cowardly dutch is largely based on british history.--Caranorn 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A letter to Japan[edit]

In 1844, he sent a messge to Japan's Shogun urging Japan open her doors. It was Edo era[1]. Would someone please write this? --220.111.69.67 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Monarchical Styles Infobox[edit]

This infobox, besides looking like a gaudy wine label, doesn't have any practical use in the biography. It's a bit silly (and not at all reverent) to address a King of the Netherlands in English, especially when he has been in his tomb for a long time. I'm going to remove it, as (for instance) happened on the King Christian VIII of Denmark page. Glatisant (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Styles[edit]

What is the basis for calling him a "Royal Highness" before 1815? Is there any basis for the given styles at all? john k (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question, there's not. I have made some research and changed the section "Titles and styles". Demophon (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as including "And Grand Duke of Luxembourg" in the style, it is my understanding that except in Luxembourg, he would always have been referred to as simply "The King of the Netherlands." My sense is also that he was predominantly referred to as "the King" even within Luxembourg. This website, which is very useful for such matters, gives the following as William II's title in Luxembourg: "We, William II, by the grace of God king of the Netherlands, prince of Orange-Nassau, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, etc. etc. etc." So in Luxembourg itself the Luxembourg title is actually mentioned after not only the Netherlands title, but the Orange-Nassau title. I don't see any evidence that anyone ever called him "His Majesty the King of the Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxembourg." Obviously he was grand duke of Luxembourg separately from being King of the Netherlands, but that's not the same thing as what his style was. john k (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations about the battles of Quatre Bras and Waterloo[edit]

The article currently reads:

He showed personal courage and energy, but frequently displayed atrocious military judgement,[citation needed] leading to many heavy casualties (some historians[who?] believe he exposed infantry in line to cavalry three times during the course of the Battle of Waterloo). The Duke of Wellington attributed this to his lack of command experience, however, rather than to his being a bad leader.[citation needed]

On 24 December 2010 an IP editor suggested "(Bernard Cornwell (Waterloo)" as a source. This book is a work of fiction, published in the USA as England as Waterloo and in the UK as Sharpe's Waterloo. There is a TV programme based on this book. It is not a reliable source.

If nobody can provide a reliable source for these allegations by January 2011, I will move them to a section entitled In fiction, with a explanation of what happened in real life according to reliable sources

Posters are right to demand historical sources, not novels, but they agree his lethal incompetence and juvenile ego got many men killed. This so-called "General," after all, was all of 23 at Waterloo, and held his title only out of deference to his royal blood. It was his first real battle. Still, he tried to play general, during the battle's confusion late that day. There is one particularly awful story of him petulantly ordering hundreds of men to certain death, just to save face. Eminent historian David Howarth's Waterloo: Day of Battle gives it in convincing detail. The neophyte had mistaken French cavalry for his own, and when he was corrected, the young man flushed, and ordered troops to follow his initial command anyway. They were all dead in five minutes. Their commander, fighting with his nephews beside him, pushed them back to save their lives, but followed orders and charged to his death. Howarth devotes two pages to it, reconstructing it from the many witnesses who published books later. I take it the incompetent prince matured into a decent king during peacetime, but to make him a hero of Waterloo, really, that's too much. Profhum (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Heir to the Dutch throne"[edit]

First of all, that is not a title. One could also make up something like "Husband of the sixth daughter of the Emperor of All Russias", call it a title and create a succession box for it. Prince of Orange is a title, a title he bore as heir apparent, and as such it has an appropriate succession box. Secondly, the succession box is misleading. He only became heir to the throne upon his father's death. Prior to that, he was heir apparent (meaning that it was apparent that he would become heir, i.e. that he would inherit). That is the meaning of the English word heir. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you got your facts straight. When his father died, William II had already been king for just over three years. 62.238.249.71 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)