Talk:States General of the Netherlands

message: I don't think that "Estates-General" is accurate.
In France, the legislature was called the Estates-General because it was a General Assembly of all the Estates, or social classes.  In the Netherlands, the legislature consisted of representatives from each province, or state.  Hence States-General.  The current Dutch legislature is a descendant of the originial states-legislature.--Henrybaker 04:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Change.  Intangible 18:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Your basic assumption is wrong: the provinces weren't the States: each province had its own States; however it's true that the States-General were not the direct representation of the Estates of all the Netherlands, but only indirectly by assembling representatives of the provincial States. But all this is moot: what matters is that even in the 17th century most British sources simply called them the "States-General".--MWAK 09:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there seems to be agreement, I'm going to go ahead and move this. Ddye 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The accurate English translation is confusingly General Estates, however. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rrius(talk) today edited out the changes in the lead the above entries apparently refer to. I did not contribute to the lead, so I have no dog in this fight. But it occurred to me that the etymology of the Dutch name Staten-Generaal is a worthy subject for this article and should be taken up by somebody who knows what he is editing about :-) I would especially appreciate a citation or two, to support any edits, instead of just wildly excising other people's contributions.--Ereunetes (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you are under a misapprehension. I excised the part that claimed "Commons" (in reference to the British House of Commons") related to class because it does not. In doing so, I left intact the discussion of the Dutch term. I also fixed a verb: it said, "...became to mean", which I corrected to "...came to mean". -Rrius (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I have to agree with your reasoning. But that leaves the question about the correct etymology of the Dutch word, and of the English word that is used for its translation (two different matters, I think). So I hope someone will come with a solution. If I have time I will look into it myself.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my edit of today reflects the above consensus.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hard work: I had to rewrite the entire Netherlands section of the Estates of the Realm article. The article The Estates  is beyond salvage, I think. Incidentally, I think I discovered the source of the corrupted English translation of Hoogmogende Heren as "High and Mighty Lords'. It turns out that it is the correct translation of Celsos Potentesque Dominos as which the States-General were always referred to in international treaties. That indeed means "High and Mighty Lords" (enclitic -que), but it should have been potentissimos Dominos (here accusative; there were no doubt examples of other cases), because the Dutch hoogmogend is a superlative adjective (comparative: grootmogend). So somebody had been sleeping in Latin school:-) I put it in a footnote, as it should not interrupt the flow of the narrative, but I think it is a nice piece of trivia :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Estates-General

message: If the "Lower House" is the more important body why is it the lower house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.105.34  (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 January 2006
:And why are the Commons so common? :o)--MWAK 09:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lower House

message: Shouldn't there be a separate article for the states general of the Dutch Republic instead of combining it all into one article. Wikipedia has seperate articles for the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Parliament of Great Britain, these two institutions are fundamentally not very different yet they have different articles. on the other hand the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is almost nothing like the original states general, yet they have the same article. In actuality, there is almost nothing on wikipedia about the political system of the dutch republic, (voting requirements, number of representatives, enumerated powers etc.) , personally I find that very inadequate for Europe's first modern republic.--99.135.145.35 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: States General of the Dutch Republic

message: I have largely rewritten the history section as the previous version was confusing, riddled with inaccuracies and misconceptions, and did not adequately treat the different phases in the historical evolution of the institution. I think it is correct (like suggested above) that the current States-General (founded in 1814) has little continuity (except the name) with the version that was founded under the Burgundian Netherlands and continued under the Habsburg Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. A separate article about the older institution might therefore be justified. However, it would be difficult to disentangle all the wikilinks that link from other articles, so for practical reasons it is probably best to keep everything in this article.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite history section

message: I would like to replace the current infobox diagram of the House of Representatives with this one I made with the Parliament diagram creator. It's the first time I've made one, so I'd like to know whether I've done it properly before I place it. Thanks. (Luxorr (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the image since there seem to be no objections. (Luxorr (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New diagram

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: It looks very silly to have a list of 'oldest living members'. Why is this relevant? Age does not play a role in Dutch politics, and these are even former members of parliament... effeietsanders 02:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest living members? 

message: Hoogmogende Heeren was the honorific form of address the States General insisted on for their foreign and domestic communications. The Dutch word hoogmogende is somewhat archaic. It is a compound word, constructed from the adjective mogende (powerful or mighty; the word further exists as part of the Dutch word mogendheid as in grote mogendheden or "Great Powers") that is modified by the adverb hoog (highly). Similar constructions in Dutch are hooggeleerd (highly educated) for university professors, and edelhoogachtbare (your high honor) for members of the Dutch Supreme Court. Hoogfrequent (high-frequency) is a more modern example of the construction. One would expect that the word would be translated as "highly powerful" in English (or maybe as "high-powered", which can be said of an executive in modern English), but the standard translation is, and has always been, "high and mighty". This is remarkable for two reasons. In the first place "high and mighty" changes the meaning of the expression subtly: both are adjectives, and "high" no longer modifies "mighty", as in the original Dutch. The etymology of "high and mighty" further shows that the expression dates from the 1400s  (long before the existence of the Dutch Republic) and that by the 1600s (when the English state first recognized the new Dutch state diplomatically) the expression had acquired a somewhat pejorative connotation, like "arrogant, imperious" So the question arises: why this apparently incorrect translation, even though the error seems obvious? My research into the matter seems to show that the source of the error appears to lie with the Dutch. In diplomatic correspondence the States General themselves used "incorrect" translations: haults et puissants Seigneurs in French, and several forms in Latin. In the Peace of Münster of 1648 and the Treaty of Westminster (1654) the construction celsos potentesque Dominos (high and mighty lords) is used. Later treaties in Latin use the construction celsos ac praepotentes Dominos (high and very mighty lords; one would have expected that the celsos would have been dropped, as praepotentes is a fully adequate translation of hoogmogende, better than the superlative potentissimos). However this may be, the Dutch themselves evidently used the construction "high and mighty" in these instances. Even in official documents in the Dutch language like placards at least in the early 17th century, the construction used was hooghe ende mogende heeren. However, in later documents, from about 1637 on, the construction had become hooghe mogende heeren (dropping the connective ende, but still two words). And still later the compound word hoogmogende came into general use. But by then the unfortunate English translation had become standard, apparently. Unfortunately, because of the generally fraught state of affairs in Anglo-Dutch relations in the middle 17th century the pejorative connotations of "high-and-mighty" gave occasion to all kinds of derived pejorative expressions, like "hogen-mogen"  in the time in which the English language was also "enriched" with expressions like Dutch courage, Dutch uncle, Dutch treat. Though intended as an honorific "high and mighty lords" became, unwittingly or not, a term of derision.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few remarks about "hoogmogende heeren" and its standard English translation "high and mighty lords"