Talk:Kingdom of the Netherlands/Archive 1

Archive 1

Netherlands vs Kingdom of the Netherlands

The Netherlands article has occasionally been about the Netherlands as one of the three members of the Kindgom of the Netherlands. However at present it's about the entire kingdom. There's probably nothing wrong with that, but it implies that this Kingdom of the Netherlands should redirect to Netherlands and the article contents should be placed somewhere else.

On the other hand, it may be confusing to have a lot of articles Politics of the Netherlands etc., which are about the Netherlands alone (there is a separate Politics of the Netherlands Antilles.) Maybe Netherlands should not be about the entire kingdom?

Officially the Kingdom of the Netherlands is more or less a "federal state", like the USA or Germany, but with only 3 states. In international relations, Netherlands "redirects" to Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is responsible for foreign affairs. The obscuring detail is that the kingdom is completely dominated economically and politically by the Netherlands, so that trying to separate out the two meanings seems almost pedantic.

I have changed the first sentence of the article Netherlands, because it seems to be about the European part only. - Patrick 18:09 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is a perfectly good solution.

I would be a proponent of merging the two items. They are for the most part identical since the Netherlands isn't really a "state" in the federal sense within the Kingdom. The distinction between the two topics can be made clear in a single sentence in the merged article.Gerard von Hebel 07:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to make sense to me. Fork me 12:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Head of government / legislature

Who is the head of government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands? How are they appointed/elected? Is there a legislature? Morwen 18:25, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Beatrix of the Netherlands. Hereditary succession. I suppose the parliament of the Netherlands is defacto the legislature. Peking Duck 20:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I said head of government, not head of state! I wasn't aware that the Netherlands was an absolute monarchy. Morwen - Talk 17:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Queen is the Head of Government. As in other Constitutional monarchies the monarch has immunity and the ministers are responsible for the actions of the government.Gerard von Hebel 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that this disputed see talk:Prime Minister of the Netherlands. The Netherlands has no head government constitutionally C mon 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution doesn't name a hierarchy between the members of the Government. The Statute however does so, at least implicitly. It says in article 2 section 1 that the King exersizes the powers of government in the Kingdom and its constituent parts.Gerard von Hebel 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a legislature. All powers that such a branch of government would have, are delegated to the parliaments of the individual countries. The executive branch of the government consists of the head of state (Beatrix) and a number of ministers from the three governments. I think. Eugene van der Pijll 23:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any legislation related to Defence, Foreign affairs, Citizenship and Extradition is likely to pass through the parliament of the Netherlands, so this is why I say it's defacto the legislature. Peking Duck 22:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean that the other countries don't get a say about who their citizens are?

What happens if the Dutch Parliament is split 49:51, and elects a Purple Party government, but the other countries would prefer a Grey Party government. Morwen - Talk 17:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Dutch parliament only contains representatives of the Netherlands, the other countries don't get any vote (after all, they have their own parliaments). The statute (in Dutch from [1]) describes the procedures. The legislature for affairs of the Kingdom is in fact the parliament of the Netherlands, but the other countries can introduce their own legislation, as can the cabinet. The islands get to comment on proposals and their representatives can take part in the debates in the parliament. Their representatives have a limited veto, where they can reject proposals unless the parliament votes for them with a majority at least 3/5 of the votes cast. Peking Duck 23:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When the Statute was created, it was considered to create a seperate Kingdom Parliament, but the structure was considered too "heavy". Thus, the Second Chamber of the States-General functions as a Kingdom Parliament whenever Kingdom Laws (concerning all three parts of the Kingdom) are passed. Members of the States of Aruba en the Netherlands Antilles have the right to participate in these sessions, as well as the Plenipotentiary Ministers of these territories. For example, members of the Surinamese States participated in Second and First Chamber sessions in The Hague when the law on Surinamese independence was discussed.

The King is both Head of State and Head of Government, a constitutional particularity. In the Netherlands, a distinction in made between the Government (or Crown) and the Council of Ministers (or Cabinet). --129.125.156.50 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In practice

What is the meaning of the federality in everyday life?

Can nationals of one of the countries move freely to another of them? Is money transfer different than in-country? Trade? Are the overseas countries part of the European Union? They don't use the Euro, do they?

There is only one nationality, as far as I know, so many people from the Caribbean have emigrated to the Netherlands. But the islands appear to be able to restrict immigration in the other direction. Each country has a different currency, only the Netherlands uses the Euro. The Caribbean parts are not part of the EU, but associated with it. Peking Duck 21:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can some Dutch people put this sort of info in the article? It's hard to find sources on this in English. Morwen - Talk 17:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure of I add anything but there is a difference between the Netherlands en the Kingdom of the Netherlands. As the article points out the kingdom consists of three states. Most laws made by the Dutch parlaiment are for the Netherlands only, they are not valid in Aruba and the Dutch Antilles. Above the Dutch constitution there is a so called charter of the kingdom (koninkrijksstatuut) which is a higher law. In this charter it is specified which laws are made together and which aren't. for example this charter is clear about offical documents. Any offcial document (like a marriage certificate or birth certificate) has to be recognised by any other state. Curently there are problems with the gay maariage. This is legal in The Netherlands and therefore must be obeyed by Aruba and the Dutch Antilles (according to the Dutch Hoge Raad) however such mariages are not possible to perform on the islands. Laws that are valid for the whole kingdom are called rijkswet (rijkswet means something like federal law) these laws are made by the Dutch cabinet plus a minister of Aruba snd one from the Dutch Antilles. Every vote has the same significance plus a veto from every country within the kingdom. In the end the queen has all the power but she is known to feel responsible for the inhabitants of her realms a lot. There are not many of these Rijkswetten but the one that ensures ones nationality (e.g pasport) is definitly one of them. The Dutch government is not able to change these laws without the consent of the other states. Inabitants of the islands are therefore truely and without any doubt Dutchman. They are free to travel within the EU and can use any aid the Netherlands assures if the are in the Netherlands (child support, medical care etc.). So altough the Dutch Antilles nor Aruba are part of the EU they are European Union citizens in any way. I am sorry if something isn't clear and please do not hesitate to ask anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_for_the_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands please note that there are major changes to be made. Curacao and Sint-Maarten are to recieve the same status as Aruba while Bonaire, Sint-Eustatias and Saba will probably get a closer relationship with the Netherlands (it's called a special municipality). it is not clear yet when this will take place but it will not be long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.233.96 (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To add under "see also" section

I would like to add the following to the "see also" section.

*[[Mainland]]
*[[One Country, Two Systems]]
*[[Mainland China]]
*[[Metropolitan France]]
*[[Lower 48]] / [[Continental United States]] — Instantnood 20:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

So what? You'd like to. But unless you have a good reason to do so, it will be reverted. Gene Nygaard 22:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why should it be reverted? As a Dutchman I can say that the things Instantnood wants to add are pretty relevant. The situation isn't exactly like the Chinese situation but it's close enough. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is just an extremely compact federation. --84.26.109.69 17:18, Jan 17, 2006 (UTC)

Because these links need a lot more explanation. The situation of China/Hong Kong is similar in some aspects, and wildly different in other aspects, compared to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. An article comparing both systems (and France, and the U.S./Alaska) would probably be welcome, but to only give these links would suggest that those articles describe the Dutch situation. Eugene van der Pijll 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that strikes me as very unhelpful comments. Obviously, most see also links "require explanation". They are clearly not meant to be synonyms, but as suggestions for further reading on related articles; these links are merely meant as a courtesy to the reader and are usually related topically, but sometimes of interest for other reasons (etymology, history, geography, etc). Users Gene and Eugene might want to brush up on this and this guideline and start from there.

"WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION". Eugene van der Pijll 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another matter that puzzles me is the title of this page. My spontaneous thought is that since the Kingdom of Norway, Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic, and United States of America all just redirect to the common short-hand form of the country names, why doesn't the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The specific constitutional arrangements of whether peripheral outlying fragments are integrated parts of the mainland state or are external entities could generally dealt with in a separate section on those countries' main articles. But perhaps these statuses can better be understood if explained in a separate article with a more specific title (e.g. Constituent states of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, compare Overseas regions and Insular areas)? I'm not saying that all articles of the same "series" must conform to exactly the same format, but for consistency and comparability are shared "model" does help. //Big Adamsky 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is never ever used to refer to just the Netherlands, but is only used when the speaker wants to specifically include the Antilles and Aruba (or when he wants to emphasize that it is a kingdom, of course). The terms are not synonymous, and a redirect would not be appropriate here. Note that the Antilles and Aruba are not dependencies of the Netherlands, but are equal parties in the Kingdom; the situation is not completely incomparable to the British Commonwealth. The Overseas regions on the other hand are more or less on the same organizatorial level as the French regions or departments; that is: subnational entities. -- Eugene van der Pijll 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has not been the British Commonwealth since 1949. It is now the Commonwealth of Nations. Hu 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, a very notable difference is that the Commonwealth members are independent member states of the UN, while the Kingdom of the Netherlands members are not. —Nightstallion (?) 08:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That is true. It's a continuum, running from the Commonwealth, through the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and France, to the UK and the US (continental/Alaska/Hawaii). An article that compares all of these systems would be very welcome. Eugene van der Pijll 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this article is comparable in substance to the one called Realm of New Zealand then? //Big Adamsky 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Judging from our article on the Realm of N.Z.: yes, these two situations look very similar. The description at Associated state of N.Z. seems to fit the Dutch situation perfectly. Eugene van der Pijll 17:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Is the flag of the kingdom of the netherlands the same as the flag of the netherlands, or should we include all three flags from the netherlands, the dutch anillies and Aruba?--KimvdLinde 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Its the same (AA-NL 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

The same flag is used for the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, am I right? — Instantnood 22:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes C mon 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — Instantnood 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

King

Queen Beatrix is KING of the Netherlands, the constitution does not know the function of Queen. (AA-NL 14:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

So what? Germany's Basic Law (Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland) also uses the masculin Bundeskanzler opposed to the feminine Bundeskanzlerin when describing the Federal Government, even though Angela Merkel is female. In conversation one speaks of Bundeskanzlerin Merkel off course, but in documents the male form is used. --84.26.109.69 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The UK has the Interpretation Act 1978 which determines the default for interpreting Acts of Parliament. Section 6 reads as follows:

In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,-

(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

(b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;

(c) words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.

Surely Dutch (and German!) law has something similar?

Silverhelm 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

A female king is a queen, by definition. I don't know if an act like the UK one exists here, but you can rest assured that it wouldn't be needed. Dutch grammar just works that way. And I can assure you that her official title is Koningin der Nederlanden. There is only one caveat: to prevent confusion, the husband of a queen is not called king, but prince instead. All the titles are specified in the Consitution. Shinobu 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Her title is Queen of the Netherlands... however the Queen of the Netherlands is King.

Would a Dutch equivalence of the UK law be applicable in this case?

A queen is either a female regent, or the wife of a male regent.

A king is a male regent, but never the husband of a female regent. The husband of a female regent is called a prince!

So "king" and "queen" aren't male/female equivalences for the same titles. (Stefan2 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

It is obvious that Queen regnant is meant here, not Queen consort. Maarten 20:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the Constitution considers that to be obvious. Therefore the Constitution does not state - and does not have to state - that the male term "King" includes a reigning Queen as well. The Constitution uses the term "King" neutrally both for the King and for the reigning Queen. So do the articles 108-112 of the Penal Code. These articles use the at first glance somewhat puzzling expression "the King or his husband". The expression applies to the King and his wife and to the reigning Queen and her husband.

It would have been logical if in official documents the male form "King" was used to refer to the reigning Queen as well. However an act, the "Act of June 22, 1891 concerning the legally determined formularies, official titles and appellations in relation to the transition of the Crown to a Queen" (in Dutch: Wet van 22 juni 1891, betreffende de wettelijk vastgestelde formulieren, ambtstitels en officieele benamingen in verband met het overgaan van de Kroon op eene Koningin), states that the term “Queen” is used in stead of “King” in all legally determined formularies, official titles and appellations. 81.70.29.134 16:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch consitution is pretty clear that the head of state is called a king, it is also clear (since 1890) that the term king can be read as queen as well. Only since the 1980's (when Victoria of Sweden was born) the sallandic law was officially rejected. This had all to do with the fact that no male appearences were born. Even now when William only has daugthers there would not be a need of such a law. In any case a king should rule the kingdom. Even though there is no king the law calls here that way. The king is head of government, male are shemale both alike. No queen could be ever head of government in a official way. Look at the coronation ceremony of Beatrix, she is called king there, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.233.96 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

EU

Will the Kingdom Islands automatically become part of the EU? (since they'll be part of the Netherlands.) — Instantnood 21:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they are LGOs, oversea areas that are part of EU membercountries, but not actually fully inside the EU. Shinobu 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Has the matter ever been discussed? — Instantnood 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If they will indeed become an integral part of the Netherlands, then they'll be part of the EU just like the Azores or Réunion are despite their distance from Europe. —Nightstallion (?) 21:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This would be correct, but since the Islands are nót an integral part of the Netherlands (for which I don't mean the Kingdom), they won't become part of the EU (following Nightstallion's reasoning). Erispre 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

hey all, I notice that the template at the beginning of the article only has a little bit of info about the Kingdom itself. I tried to create an infobox similar to the one in the article in Dutch wikipedia, but in the previews, the infobox displaced the "Netherlands history template" so that most of the history section could not be read. I then tried to see if I could edit the KotN template at the top to include the info from my infobox, but I can't do it (guess I don't know enough about editting and templates). Anyway at the very least I think the map from the infobox (which I provide below) should somehow be added to the KotN template:

Kingdom of the Netherlands Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
Flag Coat of arms of the Netherlands Coat of arms
Anthem: Wilhelmus van Nassouwe (national and royal anthem)
Capital	The Hague is the seat of the government (not the capital) 1
Largest city	Amsterdam
Official languages	Dutch 2
Government	Parliamentary democracy Constitutional monarchy
• Queen	Beatrix
• Prime Minister of the Netherlands	Jan Peter Balkenende
• Prime Minister of Aruba	Nelson O. Oduber
• Prime Minister of the Netherlands Antilles	Emily de Jongh-Elhage
Establishment
• present Kingdom established	October 4, 1830
• Statute for the Kingdom (federacy)	October 28, 1954
Area
• Total	42,679 km2 (16,478 sq mi) (134th)
• Water (%)	18.41%
Population
• July 2006 estimate	16,785,088 (58th)
• Density	393/km2 (1,017.9/sq mi) (23rd)
Currency	Euro 3 (Netherlands), Aruban florin (Aruba) and Netherlands Antillean gulden (Netherlands Antilles) (€ EUR, AWG and ANG)
Time zone	UTC+1 and -4 (CET and AST)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+2 and -4 (CEST and AST)
Calling code	31, +297, +599
ISO 3166 code	NL
Internet TLD	.nl, .aw, .an
1 Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, Oranjestad is the capital of Aruba and Willemstad is the capital of the Netherlands Antilles 2 Papiamento is an official language in Aruba. In Fryslân the Frisian language is also an official language, and Low Saxon and Limburgish are officially recognised as regional languages 3 Prior to 2001: Dutch guilder (ƒ NLG)

Also, I know it has been covered already, but the Dutch wikipedia has articles that clearly distinguish between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands. Perhaps someone who can read Dutch can copy the info from the Dutch articles and put them in the English articles (translated of course)?72.27.26.133 21:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between the two is a messy business. The Netherlands (european part) also uses the name Kingdom of the Netherlands and the institutions of the two are not seperated. They just operate in different contexts. In a way they are two sides of the same medal.Gerard von Hebel 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No federacy federal kingdom

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is not a federation consisting of three equal parts. It is a Kingdom with two autonomous regions. The Queen is represented by a Governor in these two regions and the two regions both have a plenipotentiary minister that take part in government decisions that apply to the Kingdom as a whole. The European part of the Netherlands has no such official in the two autonomous regions. The government of the Netherlands(European part), with the two plenipotentiary ministers is therefore the Government of the Kingdom as a whole. I'll try to make the appropriate changes. EDIT: I was confused by the words federacy as opposed to federation. My mistake. C mon corrected that. The other changes I made reflect that the Netherlands is not a Federal Kingdom with federal structures for three equal constituent parts, as was mentioned in the text.Gerard von Hebel 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tone in the article

There is a certain tone in the article that gives the impression of the Netherlands being superior to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The relationship between the three countries is one of equality and not one of superiority and inferiority. My english is not that good that I can translate the dutch page into the english one... but the dutch page at the moment is more accurate. There are also certain factual points: the Kingdom of the Netherlands has no capital, and no official language.

Someone with better abillities to translate then myself should take a look at both articles and adjust the english one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.169.206.197 (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Contradiction

There appears to be a slight contradiction with Netherlands (terminology). From that article:

"Netherlands" [...] is the conventional short form used to describe the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

This suggests that "Netherlands" == "Kingdom of the Netherlands". However, this article suggests that they are different.

The current Dutch dependencies are the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. Historically Suriname and Indonesia were also part of Kingdom of the Netherlands.

But this article suggests that they are represented as equals, similar to New Zealand vs. Tokelau (and some other territories in that realm), and that neither territory is a dependency of either other territory. (Stefan2 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

No stricktly speaking neither territory is a dependency of the other, however the three "countries" are not creatures of the same type so to speak. The Netherlands (European part) also goes under the name of "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and its institutions are not seperated from the institutions that govern the afairs of the whole Kingdom. One could say that the Kingdom operates in two legal contexts seperately. The European context and the Statute or Charter context, while both other countries within the Kingdom have entirely seperate institutions.Gerard von Hebel 20:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that some pages describe the situation as it is de jure, while other pages describe the situation as it is de facto, whithout stating whether it is de jure or de facto. This is confusing. (Stefan2 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

If one speaks about the Netherlands it is, most of the time, about the Netherlands, not about the Kingdom. In Dutch media the Kingdom of the Netherlands is usually called "het koninkrijk" (the kingdom), I have never seen that "the Netherlands" is used as a term for the kingdom. People of all constituent nations together are called "rijksgenoten" (fellow "kingdom men") , whereas "landgenoten" (felow countrymen) usually only applies to the people within a constituent country. Maarten 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this on the Netherlands (terminology) article. Maarten 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging "Netherlands" and "Kingdom of the Netherlands"?

Hi,

I propose to merge the articles Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands.

I know this proposition has at first glance no chance of success because those two articles theoretically deal with two distinct entities: the Netherland is a European region; the Kingdom of the Netherlands is the federation bringing togeteher three subjects: the Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. At first view there is no reason to merge these two articles.

But that's theory. The fact is the Kingdom of the Netherlands is the official name of an independent country, subject of public international law and "the Netherlands" (in the definition given in the Netherlands Wikipedian article) are only a part of it, as Jutland is only a part of Denmark. For example, in every treaty establishing the European Union (Treaty of Rome, of Amsterdam, of Maastricht, of Nice...) it's clear that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a member state of the EU. I think the same apply in every international organization the Netherlands are part of. What English Wikipedia calls "The Netherlands" is not an independent country.

And on Wikipedia, the confusion between the two entities is total. For example, every article about the EU states that the Netherlands are part of it, and links from every such articles or template boxes lead to the Netherlands article, instead of Kingdom of the Netherlands. Furthermore, all non-political facts about this country are given in the Netherlands artcle, not in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article. All should be put into the article dealing about the independent country subject of international law.

Maybe it's important for clarity to have two separate articles about two different subjects. But the separation used today in English Wikipedia isn't good at all. There should be one great article about the country, including most of the text which is now in Netherlands, and in it a political chapter explaining exactly the status of "Kingdom of the Netherland" as the status of this country. This large article must be named Netherlands, because "the Netherlands" are the short form of "the Kingdom of the Netherlands", as "France" is the short form of "the French Republic". Reading the European treaties show us clearly that the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is used every time a long form is needed for the name of the country and the term "Netherlands" is used when a short form is needed. There must be one article merging the two existing articles and it must bear the short form name, like every other article about independent countries.

After that, a new article can be created, under a name such as Netherlands (proper) or Netherlands (continental part) or anything else you want, speaking specifically of the continental part of the country. And I even say: speaking specifically of the administrative and political specificity of "the Netherlands" as one of the parts of the federation called "the (Kingdom of the) Netherlands". Every historical, geographical, cultural facts should be put in the main Netherlands article and not in this one.

What do you think of it ? Every suggestion and comment are welcomed! But in order to avoid to scatter the discuion, please answer here.

Švitrigaila 11:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the merging of the two articles.

The constitutional situation concerning the Netherlands versus the Kingdom of the Netherlands is complicated and the two notions are for a big part overlapping.

The charter speaks of three countries, The Netherlands, The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, however the three are not constitutionally the same and the concept "land" is not univocal in its meaning. Remember that the Charter is a very provisional document. Too illustrate this: for all intents and purposes, internal and external, the country "Netherlands" uses the same name as the whole namely "Kingdom of the Netherlands".

The Charter of the Kingdom, while the highest legislative document of the Kingdom, refers for the institutions of the Kingdom to the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, while prescribing certain additions to rule on certain matters pertaining to Aruba and the Antilles. The Charter and the Constitution are supplemental when it comes to the matters pertaining the Kingdom as a whole (as stated in the document of clarification to the Charter)

While the Charter provides for basic laws to regulate the government of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, it states that the government of the Netherlands (the European part) is regulated by before mentioned Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in which also the institutions of the whole are constituted.

The latter document however fails to constitute separate institutions for the "country" Netherlands, while it could have done so. It leaves the government of that country to the same institutions the Charter speaks of and which were in existence long before the Charter.

It could be said that the "Country Netherlands" and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are overlapping concepts in that sense. The Kingdom has two functions, a Charter function pertaining to the whole and a Constitution function pertaining to some matters of the whole but mainly the government of the territory in Europe. In that sense the government of the territory in Europe and the government of the Kingdom as a whole are two sides of the same medal called "Kingdom of the Netherlands"

Again, nowhere the "country Netherlands" defines itself as such officially. Externally nor internally. This is different for Aruba and the Antilles which have their own basic law. The institutions that run the affairs of the European part of the Kingdom are not separated from the Institutions that run the whole. The Dutch cabinet doesn't sit one day as the government of the Netherlands and the next day as the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands but ALWAYS as the latter. The ministers are not separately installed as ministers for the Kingdom as a whole and as ministers of the European part. The institutions, while practicing in different judicial contexts, are literally the same for Charter and for Constitution purposes and not just similar (as Maarten says). They are just added to for Charter purposes by two plenipotentiary ministers. It is however still the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of the Netherlands either way!

In that light it seems to me that definitionally the separation between the two terms cannot be upheld. While it is used in common parlance to bring some clarity into a complicated matter, it is wrong to use the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands" only in its Charter context while ignoring it has a meaning in the Constitution context as well. I posted the same on the talk page of the other article.Gerard von Hebel 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Move some data from infobox to table?

The infobox mentions 3 data for each of several items, it is more convenient to have a table with that info.--Patrick 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands New Guinea

New Guinea never was a constituent nation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; in stead, it was a crown colony ruled directly by the Netherlands proper.--62.163.205.212 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC) No that isn't true, nederland nieuw guinea has been an offcial part of the Koninkrijk. just because it has never reached the moment to perform it's offcial duties is not important. Offcially it had the same rights.

established

Hi,

While reading this article, the infobox struck my eye. It mentions that the kingdom was founded in its current shape in 1830. As far as I am aware, this was no new founding, but a change in an existing situation, which, if I'm correct, already in place since 1815 (when changing formally towards a Kingdom). In 1830 the independence of the Kingdom of Belgium was recognized, which is no different from the recognition of the independence Indonesia and Surinam. So I think that the 1815 date should be noted here. effeietsanders 12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Aruba

A user added unannotated remarks on Aruba, which not only interfere with the narrative but seem to give a one-sided Aruban point of view.--80.56.46.149 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Still not a very clear article

The article still lacks clarity on a number of issues. The inclusion of a lot of informal conventions, that fail to fully explain the situation is one of the problems. This leads to several unfortunate descriptions that are likely to cause misunderstandings. The other is that the nature of the constitutional situation is described incompletely and that sometimes wrong conclusions are drawn from that. Mainly the notions that the three countries have the same position towards the Kingdom as a whole and the notion that the institutions of the Charter are different institutions than the ones constituted and regulated by the Constitution. A notion that is clearly put to rest by article 5 of the Charter. I have tried a (partial) rewrite in which I have drawn from the Dutch article (in which I also recently participated). Also a lot of the narrative is unneccesary and was removed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I have made the changes that I mentioned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And you think that rewriting the article with your POV helps resolving the issues? For instance, this is very POV:

The Charter names the institutions of the Kingdom. Crown, Council of Ministers, Council of State and the Legislature. Because all of those are regulated in the Constitution, as article 5 of the Charter stipulates, and because the Constitution also applies these institutions for rule over the Netherlands proper, the often heard qualification of the Kindom as a federal structure, can not be upheld. The Kingdom should properly be refered to as a federacy.

You seem to think there is only one "right" way to look at the constitutional arrangements in the Kingdom, but in fact most law scholars agree that different perspectives are possible. The following quotation is from Schurende rechtsordes: Over juridische implicates van de UPG-status voor de eilandgebieden van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba, a study that was mandated by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. It is available here, pp. 119-124 (sorry for quoting such a long text, I added amphasis on relevant parts)

De landen en het Koninkrijk Het Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, dat op 15 december 1954 bekrachtigd werd door Koningin Juliana en op 29 december van datzelfde jaar in werking trad,403 heeft een vernieuwde staatsstructuur voor dat Koninkrijk in het leven geroepen die zich maar moeizaam in bekende staatsrechtelijke modellen laat passen. Die vernieuwde rechtsorde, zo stelt de preambule bij het Statuut, baseert zich op het uitgangspunt dat zij uit vrije wil is aanvaard (zij is dus voor wat betreft de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba een uiting van zelfbeschikkingsrecht)404 en heeft voorts tot fundamentele grondslag dat de landen ieder hun eigen belangen zelfstandig behartigen, op voet van gelijkwaardigheid de gemeenschappelijke belangen verzorgen en elkander wederkerig bijstand verlenen. Uit de preambule volgt derhalve dat de opbouw van dit Koninkrijk “van onderop” geschiedt: Nederland, de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba welven een gemeenschappelijk dak boven zich, maar zij vormen gedrieën de constituerende elementen van het gebouw waarvan de rechtsorde van het Koninkrijk het dak is. In dit gemeenschappelijk in het leven geroepen Koninkrijk405 bestaat een in beginsel strikte scheiding tussen de bevoegdheden van de landen (die ze als ‘eigen belangen’ zelfstandig behartigen) en de bevoegdheden van het Koninkrijk, (die ze als ‘gemeenschappelijke belangen op voet van gelijkwaardigheid’ verzorgen). Wat onder de eigen belangen van de landen valt, vermeldt het Statuut niet: uit de systematiek van het Statuut moet echter worden afgeleid dat alles wat door het Statuut niet onder de belangen van het Koninkrijk geschaard wordt, als eigen belangen en dus als autonome bevoegdheden beschouwd moet worden.406 De terreinen waarop het Koninkrijk bevoegd is (het Statuut duidt ze aan als aangelegenheden van het Koninkrijk) staan met name opgesomd in artikel 3 Statuut: ze betreffen vooral de eenheid van het Koninkrijk in relatie tot het internationaal recht. De voornaamste zijn de defensie, de buitenlandse betrekkingen, het Nederlanderschap en de uitlevering. Daarnaast is ook het bepaalde in artikel 43, tweede lid, van groot belang: het Koninkrijk heeft het toezicht op de wijze waarop de landen, kort gezegd, invulling geven aan de democratie en de rechtsstaat. Die invulling zèlf wordt in het eerste lid van artikel 43 overigens als een landsaangelegenheid aangemerkt. Nadere invulling krijgt artikel 43, tweede lid, onder meer in de artikelen 44, 50 en 51 Statuut: de koninkrijksregering houdt toezicht op de vaststelling van (delen van) de inhoud van de Staatsregelingen van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba, heeft de bevoegdheid om onder bepaalde voorwaarden landsverordeningen en landsbesluiten te schorsen of te vernietigen en kan bij algemene maatregel van rijksbestuur ingrijpen indien de Nederlandse Antillen en/of Aruba hun taken verwaarlozen. Voor Nederland geeft het Statuut geen nadere invulling aan artikel 43, tweede lid; dit zou ook weinig zinvol zijn gezien de verregaande samenval tussen Nederlandse organen en koninkrijksorganen.

De strikte scheiding tussen lands- en rijksaangelegenheden, waarbij de laatste limitatief zijn opgesomd, wijst in de richting van een federatief verband. Er zijn echter meer aanwijzingen voor de gedachte dat het Statuut een federatieve ordening voor het Koninkrijk in het leven roept: de nauwkeurige opsomming van de samenstellende delen van het Koninkrijk,407 het feit dat het Statuut de rechtsorde van het Koninkrijk boven die van de landen verheft408 en de inrichting van aparte organen van het Koninkrijk die in een aparte constitutie van het Koninkrijk worden vastgelegd en ook daarin van eigen bevoegdheden worden voorzien wijzen evenzeer in deze richting. Op het niveau van het Koninkrijk geldt een eigen type regelgeving: de rijkswet en de algemene maatregel van rijksbestuur. Het feit dat het Statuut alleen met de instemming van de organen van de landen gewijzigd kan worden, kan zelfs als een confederaal element in de koninkrijksrechtsorde gezien worden.409

Toch zou het misleidend zijn om het Statuut als de Grondwet voor een federaal Koninkrijk te beschouwen. Het Statuut kent namelijk ook een groot aantal trekken die in een federale ordening vreemd aandoen. Zo zijn de huidige drie landen weliswaar gelijkwaardig, maar niet gelijk: het land Nederland omvat immers ongeveer 97% van de oppervlakte en 98% van de bevolking van het Koninkrijk. Die sterk overheersende positie is ook in de inrichting van de rechtsorde van het Koninkrijk terug te vinden. Weliswaar heeft het Koninkrijk in de vorm van het Statuut een eigen constitutie, toch regelt deze slechts in beperkte mate de rechtsorde van dat Koninkrijk: op basis van artikel 5, eerste lid, Statuut zijn grote delen van de (Nederlandse) Grondwet evenzeer deel van de constitutie van het Koninkrijk.410 Dat de rechtsorde van het Koninkrijk in belangrijke mate op die van het land Nederland leunt, blijkt ook als bezien wordt welke dan de organen zijn die in het Statuut als koninkrijksorganen worden geconstitueerd. In vrijwel alle gevallen zijn dit namelijk organen die een nauwkeurige grondwettelijke pendant kennen. De koninkrijksregering, zo blijkt uit artikel 2 jo. artikel 6 Statuut, bestaat uit de Koning (als hoofd van de regering van het Koninkrijk) en de Raad van Ministers van het Koninkrijk: en deze laatste is samengesteld uit alle ‘door de Koning benoemde ministers’ (bedoeld wordt hier de ministers die lid zijn van de Nederlandse regering) en twee door de regeringen van de Nederlandse Antillen, respectievelijk Aruba benoemde Gevolmachtigde Ministers. De Raad van State van het Koninkrijk, zo blijkt uit artikel 13 Statuut, is het parallelle orgaan van de Nederlandse Raad van State, maar is bevoegd om adviezen te geven bij ontwerpen van rijkswet en algemene maatregel van mijksbestuur. Op verzoek van de Nederlandse Antillen en/of Aruba benoemt de Koning desgewenst een Staatsraad voor een van deze landen, die deelneemt aan de beraadslagingen van de Raad als het over een aangelegenheid gaat waarover de Raad van State van het Koninkrijk bevoegd is en die zijn land betreft.411 Ten aanzien van de Staten-Generaal voorziet het Statuut zelfs in het geheel niet in personele betrokkenheid van de landen in de West: de wetgever van het Koninkrijk bestaat derhalve uit de Regering van het Koninkrijk en de (Nederlandse) Staten-Generaal,412 waarbij voor de parlementen van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba slechts een rol is weggelegd in de schriftelijke voorbereiding van de behandeling van een ontwerp-rijkswet (waaraan zij deel kunnen nemen) en de mondelinge behandeling (waar zij bijzondere gedelegeerden heen kunnen sturen die het woord kunnen voeren, moties kunnen indienen en amendementen voor kunnen stellen,413 maar niet mee mogen stemmen) terwijl ook de Gevolmachtigde Minister zich ten opzichte van de Staten- Generaal zelfstandig op kan stellen bij de behandeling van een ontwerp-rijkswet en dus niet gehouden is deze (mede) te verdedigen.414 Ook heeft hij de bevoegdheid om de Tweede Kamer te verzoeken een ontwerp-rijkswet te initiëren, zo blijkt uit artikel 15, derde lid, Statuut.

Wat geldt voor de organen van het Koninkrijk, geldt ook voor de procedures: ook daar ligt de basis voor de besluitvorming in de grondwettelijke voorschriften en regelt het Statuut slechts iets voor zover het wenselijk werd geacht daarvan af te wijken ten behoeve van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba. Zo bevat het Statuut geen zelfstandige procedure voor de totstandkoming van een rijkswet: het bepaalde in de artikelen 81-88 GW is gewoon van toepassing en de artikelen 15-22 Statuut bevatten daarop slechts aanvullingen en correcties.415

De statutaire rechtsorde leunt kortom zeer sterk op die van het land Nederland en in de rechtsorde van het Koninkrijk heeft Nederland bovendien een sterk overheersende rol.416 Maar er zijn meer punten waarop de rechtsorde van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden eigenlijk niet goed als een federale rechtsorde beschreven kan worden. Zo legt het Statuut zeer sterk de nadruk op de bestuurlijke aspecten van de koninkrijkssamenwerking: voor de rijksministerraad wordt in dwingende termen betrokkenheid, ook in personele zin, van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba voorgeschreven, voor andere organen met een taakstelling in het Koninkrijk geldt dit niet. De Raad van State kan leden van overzee hebben (maar dat hoeft niet), de Staten-Generaal hebben als Nederlandse medewetgever en als medewetgever van het Koninkrijk dezelfde samenstelling (en hanteren grotendeels dezelfde procedure) en voor zover de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden voor de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba bevoegd is, zegt het Statuut slechts dat de rijkswet kan bepalen dat de mogelijkheid bestaat een lid, een buitengewoon lid of een adviserend lid toe te voegen aan de Raad: de betreffende rijkswet (de Cassatieregeling voor de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba) biedt deze mogelijkheid overigens in concreto niet, omdat de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba hiervoor geen belangstelling hadden.

Het Statuut voorziet ook niet in rechterlijke tussenkomst als er een geschil is over de bevoegdheidsverdeling tussen Rijk en landen: een dergelijk geschil, dat in de meeste federaties wordt toebedeeld aan een federaal, al dan niet constitutioneel gerechtshof, wordt in de rechtsorde van het Statuut primair bestuurlijk opgelost door de bijzondere procedure van artikel 12. Het Statuut voorziet al evenzeer in een belangrijke vorm van bestuurlijk toezicht op wetgeving en bestuur door de landen: zoals hierboven reeds werd gesteld kunnen alle landsverordeningen (maar ook andere typen regelstelling) van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba door de Koning, de Raad van State van het Koninkrijk gehoord, worden geschorst of vernietigd, zo blijkt uit artikel 50 Statuut. Deze vorm van toezicht lijkt erg op het repressieve toezicht dat door de regering wordt uitgeoefend op regelgeving en bestuur van Nederlandse provincies en gemeenten en past aldus veel beter bij een gedecentraliseerde eenheidsstaat dan bij een federale staat. Voor wat betreft zijn organen zet het Koninkrijk derhalve sterk in op het bestuur en veel minder op de regelgeving: rechtspraak op koninkrijksniveau is er zelfs in het geheel niet. Als dan ook nog bedacht wordt dat het Koninkrijk geen privaatrechtelijke rechtspersoonlijkheid bezit, zodat het geen vermogen heeft,417 en er al evenmin een begroting van het Koninkrijk is, dan moge duidelijk zijn dat de rechtsorde van het Koninkrijk een bepaald hybride karakter heeft en slechts zeer moeizaam in een staatsrechtelijk kader te vatten is. Borman komt in zijn reeds eerder aangehaalde studie dan ook tot de volgende slotsom: Het Koninkrijk is ‘een vrijwillig samengaan van autonome landen in een boven die landen geplaatst soeverein Koninkrijk, waarbij de organen van het Koninkrijk grotendeels samenvallen met die van het grootste land, op het niveau van het Koninkrijk slechts enkele taken worden verricht en vanwege het Koninkrijk een beperkte invloed kan worden uitgeoefend op het autonome bestuur in de kleinere landen.’418

Van groot belang is intussen ook deze laatste constatering. De rechtsorde van het Statuut voorziet op een aantal manieren (waarop hierboven in grove trekken werd ingegaan) in invloed van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba op wetgeving en bestuur van het Koninkrijk, maar duidelijk moge zijn dat deze over het algemeen niet beslissend en beperkt van aard is. De keerzijde daarvan is echter dat de invloed van het Koninkrijk op de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba al evenzeer beperkt is: verreweg de meeste bevoegdheden, of het nu gaat om wetgeving, bestuur of rechtspraak, worden in de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba door autonome landsorganen uitgeoefend op basis van eigen wettelijke voorschriften die hun grondslag vinden in de eigen Staatsregeling. Zoals hierboven reeds werd aangegeven, zijn de bevoegdheden van het Koninkrijk dientengevolge beperkt en nauwkeurig omgrensd, die van de landen daarentegen omvangrijk en in beginsel ongelimiteerd.419 En hoezeer het ook in de rede ligt dat de komende herziening van de staatkundige structuur zal resulteren in een versterking van de toezichthoudende bevoegdheden van het Koninkrijk op de overzeese rijksdelen, toch ligt het niet in de lijn der verwachting dat er in de bevoegdheidsverdeling zelf tussen Koninkrijk en landen veel zal verschuiven.420 Zoals verderop in deze analyse nog zal blijken, liggen daarin belangrijke randvoorwaarden besloten voor de wijze waarop een UPG-status voor Curaçao, Aruba en St. Maarten vormgegeven kan worden.

All in all, it is thus not possible to make one definitive statement about the constitutional arrangement of the Kingdom. That nuanced perspective should be reflected in this article. Just writing your opinion about the arrangement doesn't make the article better. In fact I think it only got worse. You deleted a lot of sourced information and your English is not very good. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It still remains that one of the countries is ruled by institutions that are also used (with some modifications) to rule the whole. The institutions are not seperated as article 5 implies when it states that the Institutions mentioned in the Charter are regulated in the Constitution. Also I don't know of any federation in which one of the countries can conduct it's own foreign affairs (in matters not affecting the other) while the others can't. I agree there are some elements of federation there, but simply not enough. The classification federacy, in which different parts enjoy different levels of autonomy, seem matter of fact enough to me. Also, the article above, that you quote seems to agree! "Toch zou het misleidend zijn om het Statuut als de Grondwet voor een federaal Koninkrijk te beschouwen". Calling the notion of the Charter as a constitution of a Federal Kingdom misleading no less. The qualification of the Kingdom as a federacy is not unheard of either. To call the sentence I have used POV doesn't seem right to me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The information that I partially removed was mainly a narrative about how the notion of the Charter lost its popularity in the Netherlands. I thought it was quite long and abbreviated it, but not up to a point where that message was lost I believe. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

However, to include the discussion about the federal elements of the Kingdom I have included the following phrase (partially borrowed from the Dutch article): "This unique arrangement, in which the two Carribean countries of the Kingdom don't just enjoy autonomy, but also have a say in the affairs of the whole, gives rise to the notion that, while the the Kingdom is not federal, it does have certain elements otherwise only found in federal states" in the first section of the article. It still seems to me however that the article should avoid the previous errors and state the matter of fact provisions from Charter and Constitution and its practical consequences, while avoiding all of the informal conventions used to explain certain matters in a way that is just not entirely satisfactory.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Kingdom cannot be described as federal, but neither can it be described as an ordinary federacy. My point is and was that the article, IMHO, should describe the sui generis nature of the Kingdom, and look at the Kingdom from various established principles in the field of political science: the principle of federalism in e.g. the delineation of Kingdom affairs in the Charter, the principle of confederalism in the fact that the Charter can only be amended by consensus among the constituent countries, and the principle of a devolved unitary state in that all laws made by either Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles can be repealed by the Crown. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sui generis just means that we don't know what to call it. If it's not federal how is it not a federacy? Or just a country with two associated states attached? The use of the term sui generis is just a statement that you make when all others fail. Can we call it a federacy sui generis? Probably...

Let's leave out all talk about federation or federacy and make the article desciptive about what is going on as a consequence of actual legislation. The whole story about the distinction between Kingdom and Netherlands needs to go I think. This is just about informal naming conventions that only confuse the issue. I'll make the appropriate changes. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the mention of Kingdom affairs in the Charter is not an expression of a federal principle imho , because they are only dealt with according to the regulations laid down in the Charter if they directly affect the NA and / or Aruba. Otherwise they are dealt with by the Netherlands that fully enjoys all the rights and the name of the Kingdom in those matters. Also the fact that the Charter can only be changed by mutual agreement doesn't make the Kingdom a Confederacy. Although it is an element that is also found in Confederacies. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, sui generis is a statement that you make when all others fail, and that is the case with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. So we should not try to put it in one of the usual "boxes" of federation, confederation, federacy or devolved state, but describe the indivual federal, confederal, federacy-like and devolution-like characteristics of the Kingdom. Trying to make a definitive statement about the constitutional being of the Kingdom yourself is Original Research, and hence forbidden here.

We should make sure that this article doesn't become a description of pure legal arrangement, and we should be aware of the consequences of this arrangements on society. So informal naming conventions are not just "confusing", they do say very much about how Dutch, Aruban, and Antillean people imagine the Kingdom they live in. The fact that people talk about "Koningkrijksdelen", "Koninkrijkspartners" etc, says very much about the emotional and socio-political dimension of the Kingdom. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote: Also, the mention of Kingdom affairs in the Charter is not an expression of a federal principle imho , because they are only dealt with according to the regulations laid down in the Charter if they directly affect the NA and / or Aruba.

Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, your humble opinion doesn't matter. We can only list arguments made by scholars on this subject. If we theorize about this issue ourselves, it is by definition Original Research. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I just expressed those opinions here for now. I removed all talk of federation or federacy from the article. The part about Kingdom versus Netherlands is just as opinionated. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You rewrote the section about the administration of the Kingdom with the following sentence:

The Council of Ministers of the Kingdom can be added to when appropriate by one Minister Plenipotentiary of Aruba and / or one Minister Plenipotentiary of the Netherlands Antilles.

This is just plain false. The membership of the Ministers Plenipotentiary is mandatory according to article 7 of the Charter:

The Council of Ministers of the Kingdom shall be composed of the Ministers appointed by the King and the Ministers Plenipotentiary appointed by the Governments of the Netherlands Antilles and of Aruba.

No it's not. The plenipotentiaries only have a seat in the Council of Ministers when affairs pertaining to their particular country are being discussed. The council of Ministers can decide about Kingdom affairs without any of them being present. Also the Council of Ministers has no seperate agenda or regulation that seperates them from the Kingdom Council of Ministers. The ministers are not seperately appointed ministers of the Kingdom and ministers of the Netherlands. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Something is said about this too in the quoted text above:

voor de rijksministerraad wordt in dwingende termen betrokkenheid, ook in personele zin, van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba voorgeschreven, voor andere organen met een taakstelling in het Koninkrijk geldt dit niet.

Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fentener van Vlissingen, statements made by me about the Kingdom not being a federation, but a federacy are not original research by me. They have been uttered by many others including on Wikipedia. I am however in agreement with leaving the entire matter out of the article. I will look at the reinstatement of the "Kingdom versus Netherlands"section however as I don't think it's very usefull, as I have explained before deleting it (again). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Statements by others here on Wikipedia are also original research. You should only write something about this when you can source it. And you are not the person to decide whether something is "useful" or not. You do not own the article and cannot decide to delete that section on your own. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Every Wikipedian can have a say in what is usefull for an article or not. And make appropriate alterations. Note also that I said "others including on wikipedia" and remember what your own source had to say about the matter when talking about original research. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see the contradiction in your own reply. You can indeed say what you think is useful, but you don't get to decide what is useful ("and make appropriate alterations" as you call it). Because then we would keep reverting each other since we differ in our opinion about what is useful. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Koninkrijksspelen and what they are named have no constitutional significance imho. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The section is about social significance, not about constitutional significance. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And why are remarks by a "werkgroep" or remarks by the Council of State about telephone numbers, that have no constitutional status remarkable about the actual situation? Including them may not be actually POV but they do tend to make the issue more messy than it already is. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom does not only have a legal/constitutional dimension, but also a social dimension; i.e. how do people constitute and perceive the Kingdom? You may find that confusing, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to describe the legal and constitutional situation here in an article about an entity that has a legal and constitutional nature. That's what the article should be about imho. Perceptions, social or otherwise, can be a part of the same article but should not be confused with the legal and constitutional situation. That is my concern! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you two would like to have someone arbitrate, I'll take on the job. I live on Bonaire, speak English as a native tongue, and Dutch as a second language. Otherwise, I'll just let you two battle it out and revisit the article after you get tired.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be in a few minutes when I am concerned. It is getting late here, and I'm getting tired of this repeated discussions with someone who doesn't seem to like to like the principle of discussing. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kww. Fentener, if I don't get to decide what's usefull, how come that you do? However not all of your alterations are that bad and I think it's funny that you keep reinstating the things I added about Federacy and Federation that I kept removing because I thought you didn't like them!

However. I don't think that some of the talk about "Kingdom versus Netherlands" is very usefull because it is about informal conventions trying to clarify a complicated situation for purposses that are limited in character. Basically all of it is explained in the rest of the article. Also, the fact that a statement is sourced doesn't make it nessecarilly helpfull. Also "participate as equals in the Kingdom", a change you made in the first section is not right. Remember the difference between "gelijk" and "gelijkwaardig" in Dutch. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get to decide what is useful either, but I am not the one that deleted stuff from the article. If you think that I don't like statements about the federal or federacy-like characteristics of the Kingdom you should re-read what I wrote. I made the change to "participate as equals in the Kingdom" because "They are equally part of the territory of the Kingdom" is not a proper English sentence. About equality, from the Charter:

The Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, noting that in 1954 the Netherlands, Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles expressed freely their will to establish a new constitutional order in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which they will conduct their internal interests autonomously and their common interests on a basis of equality and will accord each other assistance, and resolved in consultation to adopt the Charter for the Kingdom;

Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I had already changed that sentence (and participate on the basis of equality in the Kingdom). Frankly the only thing we still argue about is the "Kingdom versus Netherlands" which I had removed but may have some redeeming features after all. Which I will carefully read tommorow. Don't sit on a high horse because you didn't delete things from the article though. I made changes, you made changes. We're both entitled to do that. I wish you a good night Fentener! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good night to you too! :). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a section about the constitutional being of the Kingdom here. It is still very preliminary and uses only one source, from which I'm building it. I plan on adding other/complementary sources later. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above link to my elaboration into what the Kingdom is, I also eleborated something on why I think the Kingdom is not a federacy, federation, confederation, devolved state. Contrary to the former link, this is purely my POV. It is not suitable for the article therefore, it should only make my personal opinion clear:

Fentener van Vlissingen's POV

Why the Kingdom is not a federacy

Because in a federacy, the autonomous unit(s) are granted autonomy in the constitution of the sovereign state they are part of. The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba were not granted autonomy in the Constitution of the Netherlands, but a new constitutional order was created in the form of the Kingdom of the Netherlands instead, in which they participate on a basis of equality with the Netherlands. Furthermore, the Charter can only be amended by consensus among the constituent countries of the Charter. That is not to be found in a federacy.

Why the Kingdom is not a federation

Because one of the countries (Netherlands) more or less takes care of Kingdom Affairs, with some minor participation of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. A true Kingdom government is not constituted in the Charter; the Kingdom does not have a personality in private law and doesn't have a budget.

Why the Kingdom is not a confederation

Because the constituent countries do not have the right of secession. The Kingdom as a whole is sovereign.

Why the Kingdom is not a devolved state

Because the Kingdom is constituted in a Charter and in Kingdom law that is superior to the countries' individual law. The autonomy of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba is not the result of an act of Dutch parliament.

That is my view on the matter. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Replying on something you said earlier:

No it's not. The plenipotentiaries only have a seat in the Council of Ministers when affairs pertaining to their particular country are being discussed. The council of Ministers can decide about Kingdom affairs without any of them being present. Also the Council of Ministers has no seperate agenda or regulation that seperates them from the Kingdom Council of Ministers. The ministers are not separately appointed ministers of the Kingdom and ministers of the Netherlands. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, but when the Dutch Council of Ministers deliberates on Kingdom affairs it cannot call itself the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom, because that would be contrary to article 7 of the Charter. In order to conclude something as the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom in official documents, the Ministers Plenipotentiary need to be present. Otherwise it is just a conclusion of the Dutch Council of Ministers to matters pertaining to Kingdom affairs. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition: this becomes even more apparent when you read article 14, paragraph 3, the constitutional basis for the handling of Kingdom affairs by the Netherlands when they do not affect the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba:

Regelen omtrent aangelegenheden van het Koninkrijk, welke noch in de Nederlandse Antillen, noch in Aruba gelden, worden bij wet of algemene maatregel van bestuur vastgesteld.

"Bij wet", and not "bij rijkswet", and "algemene maatregel van bestuur" and not "algemene maatregel van rijksbestuur". So the Council of Ministers of the Netherlands indeed does not act as the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom when it governs Kingdom affairs without the participation of Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I added my part about the consitutional nature of the Kingdom, as it is an addition to the text, not a deletion, and because I think it is properly sourced. It still depends rather heavily on Gerhard Hoogers' text, but that may change during the passing of time with the addition of other sources. I don't expect many scholars to disagree on his observations on the constitutional characteristics of the Kingdom. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this sentence:

As no new separate institutions for the Kingdom have been installed, the Netherlands still conducts its affairs internally and externally in its capacity of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

New separate institutions for the Kingdom have been installed (or "established", which I think is a better word). That becomes clear when you look at the Charter: "The Council of Ministers of the Kingdom shall be composed of the Ministers appointed by the King and the Ministers Plenipotentiary appointed by the Governments of the Netherlands Antilles and of Aruba" and even more clearly "There shall be a Council of State of the Kingdom." That is the language constitutional documents use to establish institutions.

Furthermore, the Netherlands does NOT conduct its affairs internally and externally in its capacity of the Kingdom of the Netherlands BECAUSE no new institutions are installed, BUT BECAUSE OF ARTICLE 14, paragraph 3, which gives the Netherlands the right to conduct Kingdom affairs on its own when it doesn't affect the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

On your last remark. the Netherlands conducts ALL it's affairs as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, not just the Kingdom affairs (as per art. 14) because the Constitution has constructed no new institutions for the "Country Netherlands", which it could have done. In that sense the country Netherlands basically is the Kingdom in one of its apperitions. One could say the Kingdom is a coin with two sides. A Charter side and a Constitution side. I still believe that article 5 pertains to the Council of Ministers nessecarilly because the Dutch Cabinet has to act diplomatically to the outside world as the Government of the Kingdom. The plenipotentiaries are of course members, but thet do not always have to take a seat, so to speak. The Kingdom Government is still the Kingdom Government when only one of the plenipotentiaries attends. Nice addition about the Constitutional nature though. I'll be back with more remarks if I have any! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't say, there shall be a Council of State, it says, There is a Council of State. subtle difference. The Council of Ministers of the Kingdom was an existing institution when the Charter was written and article 5 is clear. "The Institutions of the Kingdom mentioned in the Charter... are regulated in the Constitution asfar as they are not regulated in the Charter. All of them, including the Council of Ministers and the Council of State would be difficult to understand without the provisions in the Constitution. They depend on those regulations, whatever is regulated in the Charter additionally. Also, Order of rule of the Council of Ministers is not seperate for Netherlands and Kingdom even. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The semi-official English translation of the Charter (from the MinBZK website) does say "There shall be a Council of State of the Kingdom." That is the treaty-language equivalent of "Er is een Raad van State van het Koninkrijk", because the Dutch present tense has a slightly different meaning when compared to the English present tense. I disagree that the Council of State of the Kingdom and the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom were existing institutions; they were established in the Charter (just look at the establishing text like "there shall be" etc!). They are indeed regulated in most parts by the Constitution, but nevertheless they are separate institutions. I can give you a lot of quotes on that if you like. Also, in the Order of Conduct that you mentioned, the institutions of the Kingdom are constantly separated from the institutions of the Netherlands.

[...] alvorens deze aan de Raad van State van het Koninkrijk respectievelijk de Raad van State worden aangeboden

Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In short, you can say that the institutions of the Kingdom largely coincide with the institutions of the Netherlands, and that the Kingdom institutions are built from the firmaments of the institutions of the Netherlands, but saying that "no new separate institutions for the Kingdom have been installed" is a bridge too far. That is also Borman's point of view. In Chapter 5 of his book, he says that "...het in feite gaat om Nederlandse en in een enkel geval Antilliaanse of Arubaanse organen, die tevens, maar niet in de eerste plaats, fungeren als orgaan van het Koninkrijk". "Tevens" signals that the Kingdom institutions are legally separated from the institutions on which they are based. He confirms that later with:

De gemeenschappelijke taken worden opgedragen aan bestaande Nederlandse organen, maar deze organen hebben bij het verrichten van deze taken een aparte status en voor elk orgaan wordt door aanvullende voorzieningen op het punt van samenstelling en werkwijze de inbreng van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba, al dan niet in facultatieve zin, geregeld.

And also:

Ook wordt de indruk gewekt dat er echte Koninkrijksorganen zijn, terwijl die er in werkelijkheid slechts formeel zijn.

So, formally and legally, both institutions are separated. In reality both institutions largely coincide. That should be reflected in the article, but saying that the Kingdom institutions don't exist at all is contrary to the truth and also contrary to what Borman is saying. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that they institutions are operating in legal contexts or situations that are entirely seperate. I agree with the Borman text you quote on that. "Tevens" indeed implies that they are. "Tevens" roughly translated as "also" however also means that the organs have more than one task and more than one legal context in which they operate. He says here "These organs have a different status when performing their different tasks." I still don't think however that the nature and origin of the organs can be entirely seperated. Espacially in the light of article 5 that directly point to regulations about the organs that are also valid in the other context. I don't believe that there are two councils of state or two councils of ministers any more than I believe there are three or even four monarchies within the Kingdom, as some would have. They are organs that have different tasks in different contexts but can not be seen as two entirely different organs. Neither are their members seperatly appointed in the 'seperate' organs. They are not double officeholders in that sense. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

King of the Kingdom

This is an observation that is separate from the above discussion, but I think is too striking not to mention here.

Borman says this in his Het Statuut voor het Koninkrijk, page 84, second paragraph:

Er zijn drie landen, die in volkenrechtelijke zin één staat vormen: het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Er is dus ook maar één staatshoofd. Als staatshoofd representeert de Koning altijd het gehele Koninkrijk. Het land Nederland en de Caraïbische landen hebben geen staatshoofd, alleen het Koninkrijk als geheel.

C.A.J.M. Kortmann says completely the opposite in his Inleiding constitutioneel recht, page 153:

Allereerst bepaalt het Statuut dat de Kroon van het Koninkrijkgedragen wordt door de Nederlandse Koning. Hij is staatshoofd van het Koninkrijk. Daarnaast is hij staatshoofd van elk van de drie landen. Aldus zijn er vier ambten in zijn persoon verenigd.

Very remarkable! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, but that is my personal impression, that Kortmann, looking at this from a judicial point of view is trying to find the right language to describe what's going on from that particular viewpoint. Borman mentioned in the section above tries to do something similar but uses much more nuances. Perhaps his view is more political or historical. I try to look at it from the standpoint that the history and the descriptions of the organs in Charter and Constitution is too mixed up and too dependent on eachother to justify the opinion that we are dealing with two wholly different and seperated institutions. Also article 5 contains language that accomodates that view. It says that the organs of the Kingdom mentioned in the Charter are regulated in the Constitution in asfar they are not regulated in the Charter. All institutions that are mentioned are dependent on descriptions in Constitution and Charter and use them both for their application at the Kingdom level and at the Netherlands level. In that sense the monarchy is not dependent on different sources than the Council of Ministers. Also, the name Netherlands is a description only used for Charter purposses. That country chooses to take the identity of the Kingdom for historical and practical (art. 14 Ch.) reasons. That is a dimension that I believe should be reflected in this situation in which the article for the Kingdom and the Netherlands are seperated. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lede needs work

Could someone rewrite (or re-translate) the lede paragraph for a lay audience? It sounds like it was written by a lawyer who didn't know English very well:

The Netherlands are ruled by the institutions of the Kingdom that are mentioned in the Charter and regulated in the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. A document that was the leading law of the Kingdom up to 1954, but has remained the document (per article 5 of the Charter) in which the institutions of the Kingdom are, for the most part, regulated. As no new separate institutions for the Kingdom have been installed, ... This unique arrangement, in which the two Caribbean countries of the Kingdom not only enjoy autonomy, but also have a say in the affairs of the whole, gives rise to the notion that, while the Kingdom is not federal, it does have certain elements otherwise only found in federal states.

I for one, among many, perhaps, think that, if we try, we could, possibly, do better. -- 76.204.101.11 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Government

Highfields, the two ministers plenipotentiary are not part of the Government of the Kingdom, only the Ministers appointed by the Crown are. The plenipotentiaries are a member of the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom but not of the Government of the Kingdom. That's the difference.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thats what I originally thought, although I didn't know the details. But I trusted the explanation given to me by another editor. If you say your explanation is more accurate then I'm happy to accept that. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I knew the exact details of the situation; I came past this section and it gave me the distinct impression that it was not saying what it meant to be saying, because I naively assumed that the Government of the Kingdom included its entire Cabinet of Ministers. Hebel now tells us this is not so, and he seems to be more informed than me. I would suggest however adapting that section so the contrast becomes clearer - the situation is very counter-intuitive and it doesn't help that the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are so similar in name. sephia karta | di mi 12:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to simplify the sentence in question. Highfields (talk, contribs) 12:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

capital

Do we have any source that Amsterdam is the capital of the Kingdom? Amsterdam is directly nor indirectly named in the statute, so I guess it has the same level as Oranjestad etc, or am I missing something? L.tak (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to a similar discussion as the one on the Dutch wikipedia :). I don't have a clue as to the Kingdom status of Amsterdam. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam is the capital of the Kingdom per the constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. But only because it says that the monarch shall be enthroned in "the Capital Amsterdam". Regulations concerning the monarch are vested in the constitution rather than in the Charter, because the Netherlands Constitution also constitutes and regulates the institutions of the Kingdom that are mentioned in the Charter, as stated in article 5 of the Charter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

discuss change coat of arms...

I started discussion here. Let's not change without consensus... L.tak (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The coat of arms depicted at this point are not the "official" (ambtelijke) version. But they are correct and fine with me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Government of the Kingdom

The government of the Kingdom consists of the Monarch and the council of ministers of the Netherlands. The plenipotentiary ministers of the other countries are part of the council of ministers of the Kingdom, but not of the government of the Kingdom. Not ever per article 7 of the Charter which clearly doesn't state that. This is because most affairs of the Kingdom (those not pertaining to the other countries) are dealt with by the Netherlands alone. I will make an adaptation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the constitution indicates it's the ministers (and not the council of ministers). See: Art 42: De regering wordt gevormd door de Koning en de ministers. I do agree however that those ministers do not include the plenipotentiary's, but is that inconsistent with how the text is presently? L.tak (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent not perhaps, but not very clear either. The Charter speaks somewhere of "Ministers appointed by the King". Perhaps that would be a better phrase than "and her Ministers", because that could be construed to include the plenipotentiaries. The plenipotentiaries however are not appointed by the Queen. Could you live with a phrase like "and the Ministers appointed by her" or "and her Ministers from the Netherlands"? Thank you for your insight and let me know. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

that would indeed be more specific. I prefer "and the Ministers appointed by her" or "and the ministers of the Netherlands" (but not "and her Ministers from the Netherlands", as it suggests there are also "her ministers from -say- Sint Maarten, for which I believe there is no basis....). Feel free to implement! L.tak (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now done so. Thank's for your reply! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge

This article should be merged with the Netherlands. It could done in the model of the articles on Denmark and France, which refers to the country and the greater sovereign state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Essie (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

no... the kindom of the Netherlands consists of 4 -formally- equal countries (Netherlands, Curacao, Aruba and Sint Maarten); unlike France et al, which have dependencies etc (see this article for more info)... L.tak (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The countries are not exactly equal. Not even formally. Their status towards the whole of the Kingdom is not the same. The countries are equal in the sense that they are equally part of the Kingdom (gelijkwaardig).Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Governors

This article says the monarch is represented in the countries by a governor, and the country articles say the governors are appointed by the monarch, but none of the articles give the basis for those appointments. Is it the monarch's own personal decision? On the advice of the Kingdom government? On the advice of the country governments? On the advice of some special committee? Or what? Dab14763 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming...

In many writings and usual conversation in English, "Netherlands" means a sovereign state. This usage is used in many situations such as international sport events. In 2013 World Baseball Classic, many players from Dutch Caribbean countries/regions (such as Curaçaoan Andruw Jones) played for the team of the Netherlands. I think "Netherlands" should be the name of article for the sovereign state, thus Kingdom of the Netherlands. I suggest two options:

Sugestion 1

Current	My suggestion
"Kingdom of the Netherlands"	Move "Kingdom of the Netherlands" to "Netherlands" Move most of contents in the "Netherlands#History" to here.
"Netherlands"	Move "Netherlands" to "Netherlands (constituent country)" Remove many contents in the "Netherlands#History"

Sugestion 2

Current	My suggestion
"Kingdom of the Netherlands"	"Netherlands" (merger)
"Netherlands"

If we need a separate article for the constituent country, "Netherlands (constituent country)" is suitable (Suggestion 1). Additionally, the contents of "Netherlands (constituent country)" (current "Netherlands") should focused in the legal basis and demographics and contents concerning Dutch history should be moved to "Netherlands" (current "Kingdom of the Netherlands"). If "Netherlands (constituent country)" is rewritten like this, it will be similar to some other articles like "England and Wales" (which focuses the legal jurisdiction) or "Dutch Caribbean" (which focuses the terminology). I think this is better than the current articles. How do you think about it?

• Note: Formerly, "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" were separate articles because the meaning of the former contain both the practical territory and the territorial claiming but the latter is only limited in the island of Taiwan. However, it causes confusion to the readers, so they were moved to "Taiwan" and "Geography of Taiwan", respectively. I believe the Netherlands-related articles have to be modified like the Taiwan case.

--Wikipean (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good thoughts on a complicated situation. The political situation doesn't break down well into simple articles. At any rate, I think this would be better discussed on Talk:Netherlands though. I expect it is a far more trafficked article, and the response is likely to be better. CMD (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll open a new discussion on Talk:Netherlands and write modified suggestion soon. :) --Wikipean (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the new discussion --Wikipean (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Netherlands which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)