Talk:Monarchy of the Netherlands

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Republicans

message: 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)
thread_title: Pluralization?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dates?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: William I

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Juliana

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Over templated

message: 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)
thread_title: Not enough information on the institution of monarchy

message: 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)
replies: text: Corrected caps♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Dutch queen, Queen of the Netherlands, king verses queen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Death, abdication and removal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Formation of the Government

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monarchy of the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110325102444/http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl:80/english/ to http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/english/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monarchy of the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621044856/http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/globale-paginas/taalrubrieken/english/frequently-asked-questions to http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/globale-paginas/taalrubrieken/english/frequently-asked-questions/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

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) 16:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion