Jump to content

Talk:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Profile picture

[edit]

Can't the picture of Maxima be updated? It's old now. Any of the other pictures seem more recent. Besides, there are loads of "free use" official portraits of Maxima, released by the Royal Court. I tried doing this some time ago but no success. --90.15.134.175 (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely unclear which picture you're referring to. Links are always helpful. Though it would be even more helpful if you would edit the article yourself. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Profile picture" is a bit of an anachronism here. I think you mean "infobox image."

Request Removal Unsourced Genealogical Claim

[edit]

The father of Maxima Zorreguieta is described as the "son of a Basque Argentinian father and an Italian Argentinian and a descendant of some Basque nobility and also a three times descendant of Pachacuti (through Túpac Huallpa)...". The claim for Inca Pachacuti as an ancestor through his grand-daughter Beatriz Túpac Yupanqui is not supported in any online references cited. I checked the wayback machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20060721202441/http://www.wargs.com/royal/maxima.html to find the original web page listed as http://www.wargs.com/royal/maxima.html and could find no lineage to Beatriz. Also the Argentinian Institute of Genealogical Science (see http://www.genealogia.org.ar/maxima.html) does not show any documentation to support this claim. I recommend deleting the text " and also a three times descendant of Pachacuti (through Túpac Huallpa)". Sean729 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added template for citation/source on the claim of descent through Túpac Huallpa, which I had originally removed some weeks after adding the above talk entry. Perhaps removing unverified, no source content is considered censorship? Sean729 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed ridiculous cyber-attack: "She is also a descendant of Peruvian Pedro Álvarez Holguín and Túpac Huallpa, a puppet Peruvian Inca Emperor." This is not cited in any of the three online references. Basques and italians emigrated to Argentina from France, Spain and Italy about 100 years ago, or even more recently. The mixing with incas sounds absurd, that's why I took the time to read all three references in full. Furthermore, the cited references demonstrate that all her ancestors were european. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

COULD someone move the information regarding Maxima's father (under "Early life and education") to his own entry (which exists for Dutch and Spanish)? It occurrs to me that some of that info is not relevant here. THANK YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.157.213 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Just trying to figure out what Mamixa's actual title is. The title of this page, it seems that her official title is The Princess of Orange, but on the Dutch monarchy's website, she is referred to as Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. Just curious, but does anyone know which is right???Prsgoddess187

A: Princess Maxima is not legally entitled to use Princess of Orange. Upon her marriage, Maxima was created Princess of the Netherlands in her own right, as the government feels that the only person to use the title "Prince/Princess of Orange" should be the heir to the throne. The Dutch monarchy website is correct, Wikipedia is wrong.

Thanks for the answer. How much trouble do you think it would cause to move the page? If she is not entitled to Princess of Orange, her page needs to be moved.Prsgoddess187 12:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree In that case I would agree with Prsgoddess187 to have this moved to the correct title. If this is what the Dutch government says is her name and title, obviously they would know best what the correct way is. Gryffindor 10:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AgreeMac Domhnaill 23:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AgreeOriginalbigj 19:31, 10 October 2005

Discision

[edit]

Page moved - have a good day!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

crown or not /princess

[edit]

Isn't she Crown Princess of the Netherlands? Everywhere I see her husband referred as Crown Prince, but she seems to be just a princess. ObRoy 01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see her titled as Crown Princess? I believe that the Netherlands is in the same situation as the United Kingdom in that the heir to the throne simply is not titled Crown Prince. The difference though is that the Netherlands does not automatically extend titles to the wives of princes. Maxima had to be created a Princess of the Netherlands and a Princess of Orange-Nassau. Even if the Dutch had the title of Crown Prince, the use of Crown Princess has not legally been extended to Maxima. Charles 01:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, I do not see HER titled as Crown Princess, contrary to your belief. Whereas her husband's article begins with "Crown Prince..." - and that crown prince is in quite many other places too, when browsing internet. Besides, what makes Netherlands so different in that grant aspect - there are certainly other realms too where a grant is needed. ObRoy 02:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be then that the Netherlands treats the crown princely title the same as the title of Prince of Orange --- only the heir may bear them. Charles 02:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now you construct Netherlands an exception... what if the "crown prince" mentioned in W-A's article is only some vernacular... ObRoy 03:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My previous statement was only relevant if the article on W-A is true. Before that though, I doubted that it was. I still do. Charles 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Dutch Royal Family's website, he is only mentioned as The Prince of Orange, no mention of Crown Prince. I think that his article is misworded, it should probably start out with Prince W-A, PoOrange. Prsgoddess187 11:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm Dutch and I can tell you that "Prince of Orange" ("Prins van Oranje" in Dutch) is the title that only the crown prince or crown princess (as Princess of Orange) can inherit, dus only the heir to the Dutch throne and nobody else. He is our crown prins (kroonprins in Dutch). In Dutch we say Kroonprins Willem-Alexander (Crown Prince Willem-Alexander), but maybe it is not an official title, just a word that say what he is: the future king. But I'm not an expert on this either. I can just say he IS a Crown Prince and one of his titles IS Prince of Orange. Maxima can not be named a Crown Princess, because she is no heir to the Dutch throne. When Willem-Alexander will become king, his daughter Princess Catharina-Amalia will become the crown princess and get the title Princess of Orange. Peter Maas\talk 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Q: As I know it, Cerruti is an addition to Maxima's name, invented by a certain poster on royal message boards. He likes the nobles and royals to have names which sound as grand as possible. However, to have the mother's maiden name added after the father's name is not the argentinian custom. Is there really any proof Maxima actually had Cerruti as a part of her legal name when she married into royalty ?? Vupti 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that was something "invented by a certain poster on royal message boards"; although it's not common, actually many Argentines have the mother's maiden name added after the father's name. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 05:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BORN AND RAISED IN ARGENTINA, I agree with Vupti: using the mother's family name was not standard amongst "normal" families (now there are many options, according to a new law on family names). I deleted the non usual part of her (and her father's) name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.157.213 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Uninvolved"

[edit]

but the research the Dutch Parliament did in order to accept Máxima Zorreguieta as spouse to the future King, determined her father was uninvolved with the deaths. (An estimated 10,000-30,000 people disappeared during this and subsequent military regimes before democracy was restored to Argentina in 1983).

In the Dutch press attempts were even made, to make the people believe, that "he didn't know about that". This didn't stop, untill somebody in a letter to the editor posed the question, whether that minister happened to be on the Water-Closet, any time that kind of things was spoken about in the Council of Ministers. James Blond 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Incognito'

[edit]

In an interview, they stated that he introduced himself only as "Alexander" so she did not know he was a prince. She thought he was joking when he told her he was a prince.

And when she asked:"Alexander who?" the answer was: "Van Buren"; and that his brother was also working for a bank in NY. But why did it had to take place at that Spanish costumed festival? Well, otherwise, one would say, when hearing this fairy tail, that although he didn't mention his full name, she would have recognized him anyway. Evidently however, by telling this story, the risk is taken for granted, one could say, that due to that costume, she may have thought, it was some Spaniard she met. A typical carnival-relationship so. Veritas simplex. Lies are complicating things. James Blond 07:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Mevrouw of Amsberg.

There's no Princedom of Orange any more. There's no Princedom of Nassau any more. The title prince or princess only belongs to possible successors of a throne. "Mevrouw of Amsberg" is: "Misses Von Amsberg", and not "Misses of Amsberg". The translation in English of the word Von here would be "from"; "Misses from Amsberg", so and to be consequent: "Misses from Amsmountain". Ha! James Blond 12:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former Principalities of Orange and Nassau are indeed gone, but the titles remain! the title Prince of Orange-Nassau of Princess of Oranje-Nassau are just titles of nobility, it is not used to claim a certain territory! It is carried by members of the House of Orange-Nassau, the Dutch Royal family. Peter Maas\talk 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titles II

[edit]

HRH Princess Máxima was Princess of the Netherlands and of Orange-Nassau from 2 February 2002, not before. The Royal Decree of 25 January 2002 that determined that Maxima would be incorporated into the Dutch nobility with the title of princess only came into effect at the time of the wedding ceremony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.102.79 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess of Orange

[edit]

Why doesn't she bear the title Princess of Orange like her predecessor Sophie of Württemberg as the spouse of the Prince of Orange? As wife of the Prince of Orange she should be able to hold this title. Is this like the case of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in which the royal family chooses not to use this title?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxima is 150yrs younger. I think (but cannot back up right now) is that the Dutch consider the Prince or Princess of Orange the heir to the throne, so naming Maxima Princess of Orange might be confusing. Just like Amalia will becomes Princess of Orange once Willem becomes King, but her future husband will not become Prince of Orange. Arnoutf (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder: will Maxima be Queen of the Netherlands once her husband ascends the throne? If she will be queen consort, shouldn't her future son-in-law be king consort? Surtsicna (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The husband of a Dutch ruling Queen is called prince consort. Maxima will either be Queen or princess consort (apparently King takes precedence over Queen). Arnoutf (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The husband of a Dutch queen regnant was called prince consort in the days when brothers had precedence over sisters in the line of succession. Now that the Dutch crown passes by "equal" primogeniture, wouldn't it be logical for spouses of male and female monarchs to be treated equally? Surtsicna (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is logical about a hereditary head of state (or any other tradition)? I dont know, lets wait and see what the title of Maxima will be after Willem becomes king. If it is Queen your point remains interesting, if it becomes princess consort I think the matter is solved Arnoutf (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this confusing? Letizia, wife of Felipe, Prince of Asturias bears the title Princess of Asturias even though one day her daughter would be the Princess of Asturias, in her own right, also. If Felipe dies before becoming king, Letizia would become Dowager Princess of Asturias and her daughter will be the Princess of Asturias, and if Felipe becomes King Letzia will be Queen and her daughter will be the Princess of Asturias. PS:It seems this site refers to her as the Princess of Orange.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the wife of the Prince of Orange she is (was, she is queen now) entitled to call herself Princess of Orange. She was not however styled that way because in the days of absolute primogeniture, a Princess of Orange could also be the heir apparent to the throne, as her daughter is today. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hair colour

[edit]

Her hair is dark, but since her stay in Northern-Europe it is as good as always bleached. As a matter of fact it is made the more light, the more northern the province or country she visits, is situated.

Is this really true? Especially the latter part seems kind of weird. No mention of this on the Dutch wikipedia page, and if I look at a picture of her on the royal website when she was young, she looks pretty much like a natural blonde to me (although the picture is black/white). It would be nice to quote a source, or else remove it...

On photographs of Maxima as a child her hair is brown. --DrJos (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Info

[edit]

There should be some discussion of Maxima's religion and any complications/accomodations made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.59.205 (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reassess B to start

[edit]

A B class requirement is that it has some gaps or missing elements or references
I interpret this as "some missing references" are acceptable (ie a substantial part of the article is referenced). This article does not list a single reference. Therefore it does not meat this requirement and cannot be assessed at B class. Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue?

[edit]

Why is the title of the chapter concerning her children "Issue" and not simply "Children". There isn't an issue, or what? --DrJos (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because issue is a synonym for offspring ie children that is commonly used in biographies. [1] Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Issue"? That's an archaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So is a monarchy ;-) 09:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Princess of Orange. Again.

[edit]

According to Princess of Orange, Maxima does have the title Princess of Orange. In that article, it also makes a case as to why she is. This article states she does not have the title? Which is it and can someone in the know then edit either article to clarify? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxima has the title of "princess of the Netherlands", but is to be mentioned or adressed as "queen" (not to add to the discussion below). Prince or princess of Orange is traditionally the title for the crownprince or -princess. Willem-Alexander held that title only a few days ago and it has passed to his oldest daughter. NL-basedSander1453 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before absolute primogeniture that came about in 1983 only the eldest male child of the monarch was called "Prince of Orange" and his wife was the "Princess of Orange". Because the oldest daughter of the monarch can now also be the "Princess of Orange" that title isn't used anymore for the wife of a Prince of Orange. She is still entitled to it, but she is not styled that way. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beurs van Berlage Koninklijk Huwelijk.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Beurs van Berlage Koninklijk Huwelijk.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Beurs van Berlage Koninklijk Huwelijk.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Ideally, the infobox needs editing. A Queen Consort does not reign.

Requested move 2013

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Máxima of the Netherlands → Máxima of the Netherlands – Consistency. Beatrix did not have "Queen" in the title of her article, and even the title of here husband's article, Willem-Alexander, who is the reigning monarch, does not contain "King".  thayts t  09:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose - check Queen Sofia of Spain, Queen Paola of Belgium, Queen Silvia of Sweden. Queen consorts have their title before their name. Although, as Maxima is title "Queen Maxima, Princess of the Netherlands" this could get tricky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prsgoddess187 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose—It assumes that everyone knows "Maxima" is a queen before they arrive at the article. Tony (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here to suggest a similar move, but given Prsgoddess187's comment, I'm now not sure a move would be appropriate.--MZMcBride (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? The proposed title is by no means inaccurate or misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the current page title follows the pattern of the other consorts mentioned.

        I don't believe anyone suggested that either title is inaccurate or misleading. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but you come off as overaggressive in this talk page section. Please calm the hell down. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        • I already explained that improving the titles of articles about other consorts would be much wiser than leaving this article with a bad title. I do hope you are the only one who found me aggressive here. In any case, I may have found it a bit hard to be calm when explaining that improvement should not be avoided simply because we would have to improve other articles as well. Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and move the others to the same format! This is a very reasonable proposal. It is ridiculous to have "Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands" and "Queen Máxima of the Netherlands" - that is, to accord the title to the consort but not to the monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is a very curious pattern that kings all have articles with their names (but not "King" before the name) while the queens all have "Queen" in the title. Let's be consistent. And of course redirects will get people to the article either way. Paul Koning (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Prsgoddess187 above and CONSORTS. After years of move discussions we've established the pattern that, except when already best known in English by another name, emperors/empresses and kings/queens who have ordinals in their names suggesting ruling status don't also use a title in the article's name (e.g. "Catherine II of Russia", "Henry VIII of England", "Juan Carlos I of Spain", "Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden"), and many articles on emperors and kings without ordinals are named consistently with monarchs who do; whereas article names for the dynastic consorts of emperors and kings -- because they always lack ordinals -- do prefix the title "Queen" or "Empress" while living (e.g., Queen Paola of Belgium, Queen Noor of Jordan, Queen Sophia of Spain). The difference in article names helps readers more readily "disambiguate" queens regnant from queens consort, an important distinction in function easily preserved by adhering to our usual practice. FactStraight (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd. I would think of a queen regnant before a queen consort when I see the title 'Queen'. But if this is the result of years of discussions, so be it. Thanks.  thayts t  10:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a Dutchman and jurist (Dutch law) I can assure you Máxima isn't even queen consort. No such thing exists in the Dutch monarchy since a new law was passed in 2002 concerning the members of the royal house. She is a princess. For some odd (mostly historical) reason, our prime minister has decided she will nevertheless be called queen, even though she's just a princess. It isn't a title. Nothing in her position changed on the 30th of April, except the way she's addressed. You can blame our prime minister for having us call a princess 'queen'. 86.83.61.47 (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you could improve the article with the knowledge you got there? The more knowledgeable the source, the better the article. :-)  thayts t  22:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not unusual for the position of a monarch's consort to be a matter of tradition rather than statute. Much was made of Leopold III of Belgium's wife, Lilian Baels, not becoming queen when she married him, but the marriage was controversial and so King Leopold simply implemented a one-time change in the tradition, which Belgium's Parliament allowed simply by ignoring it. A similar exception has been unilaterally announced in the case of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. In Maxima's case, where the popular assumption is that she is and should be queen consort, if no legislative action is taken I daresay "Queen" is how she'll be treated and called. Not making the consort's position statutory allows flexibility in practice. FactStraight (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with 86.83.61.47, but it is technically impossible to change the article, i.e. removing the prefix "Queen". The article once was without it but it is renamed. It cannot be changed back, unless a moderator does so. According to the law, Beatrix was actually not a queen but a female king. The Dutch constitution refers to "Koning" (Dutch for: King) consequently and the articles are still valid when the kiing is a woman. Hans Kamp (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be that it helps us, Wikipedians, disambiguate queens regnant from queens consort, but a reader unfamiliar with our "ways and customs" would certainly not find it reasonable to have monarchs as "Mary III of Foo" and consorts at "Queen Emma of Foo". There is nothing inherently reasonable about such practice. Also, why don't we have "King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands"? He also lacks an ordinal. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have got a question about all the other Dutch consorts. For example Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Her article title doesn't say Queen Emma of the Netherlands although the official web page of the Koninklijk Huis refers to her as Queen Emma Link. Why is that? Catansiedler (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article of the previous queen consort of the Netherlands has the title Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Queen is not an official title in the Netherlands. The head of state is called king in the Dutch constitution even when the reigning monarch is a female. This is why Prince Claus of the Netherlands was never known as "King Claus of the Netherlands" because that would be confusing as to who was head of state. Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 19:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emma is there because deceased queen consorts revert back to their pre-martial title. It will raise an interesting question on how to handle this new crop of "commoner" brides, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Current wives of kings are at Queen N of Country; deceased queen consorts are at their birth title. Two different rules. Morhange (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to handle the 'new crop' any differently to how we handle Anne Hyde, Jane Seymour, Elizabeth Woodville or Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(OK, maybe Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is a poor example, although I predict that that will cease to be her WP:COMMONNAME with the passage of time.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Dutch Royal House clearly regard Maxima as Queen; she's right there on the home page of their website (http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/) described as 'Koningin Maxima'. The reason Claus was not King is that this is not a symmetrical relationship; in general, the husband of a queen regnant receives no specific title, and is never granted the title of King. (Queen Victoria of the UK wanted Prince Albert to be made King, but parliament refused. Ulrika Eleonora and Mary II were very unusual special cases.) But the wife of a king (regnant) is always a queen. Even though it's believed that Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, may use the title 'Princess Consort' as and when her husband becomes king, there would be no legal, constitutional or traditional impediment to her using the title of Queen instead, as she is entitled to it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch Royal House states on that page (on authority of the Prime Minister), that Máxima will be called Queen but will carry her previous personal titles during her husbands reign, i.e. Princess of the Netherlands. So much is clear. Yet her predecessors Emma, Sophie, Anna Paulowna and the first Wilhelmina, all carried the title Queen of the Netherlands during their husbands reigns. Máxima carries Queen as part of her name, not as a title. This might seem strange, but it is how the Dutch dealt with it and I think this is where the confusion lies and why some are looking to avoid the issue by renaming.
  • Oppose. Queens enjoy the title "Queen" even if consort, during their lifetime. We drop the courtesy title only when they become historic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Read https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/dossier/28223/kst-28223-5 (→"Koningin": "De leden van de fractie van D66 vroegen waarom nu niet de knoop word doorgehakt waar het de titel van de echtgenote van de Koning betreft. Zij merkten op dat het nu gissen blijft of de vrouw van de toekomstige Koning Koningin wordt of prinses blijft.") , http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/02/15/deskundigen-in-nrc-maxima-kreeg-te-snel-titel-koningin/ ("Zij wijzen erop dat de Wet lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis spreekt van 'Prinses der Nederlanden' als echtgenote van de koning. Van koningin als echtgenote is geen sprake."), http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/globale-paginas/taalrubrieken/deutsch/haufig-gestellte-fragen/ ("Wird Prinzessin Máxima Königin? -Ja, als Ehefrau des Königs wird Prinzessin Máxima Königin sein. Ihr offizieller Titel lautet dann »Königin Máxima, Prinzessin der Niederlande, Prinzessin von Oranien-Nassau«. -War es schon immer so, dass die Ehefrau des Königs Königin ist? -Ja, das ist ein historischer Brauch. Die Gemahlinnen der Könige Wilhelm I., II. und III. waren ebenfalls Königinnen: Königin Wilhelmina, Königin Anna Paulowna, Königin Sophie und Königin Emma. Dies ist übrigens keine staatsrechtliche Frage, die durch einen Erlass, ein Gesetz oder eine andere Vorschrift geregelt werden müsste. Vielmehr handelt sich um eine Tradition, die auch mit internationalen Gepflogenheiten im Einklang steht. -Wird Königin Máxima die gleichen Befugnisse besitzen wie ihre Schwiegermutter heute? -Nein. Dass Máxima als Königin tituliert wird, bedeutet nicht, dass sie die mit dem Königsamt verbundenen Befugnisse und Verantwortlichkeiten hätte. Königin Beatrix ist das Staatsoberhaupt. Prinzessin Máxima wird in Kürze nicht Staatsoberhaupt, sondern Ehefrau des Staatsoberhaupts sein. -Wie werden die offiziellen Titel des Königs und der Königin lauten? -Seine Majestät König Willem-Alexander, König der Niederlande, Prinz von Oranien-Nassau. -Ihre Majestät Königin Máxima, Prinzessin der Niederlande, Prinzessin von Oranien-Nassau. ([2]) -Ihre Königliche Hoheit Prinzessin Beatrix der Niederlande.") http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013729/geldigheidsdatum_01-05-2013 ("Artikel 8, 2.: „De titel «Prins (Prinses) der Nederlanden» kan bij koninklijk besluit uitsluitend worden verleend aan de volgende leden van het koninklijk huis: a. de echtgenoot of echtgenote van de Koning“"(the Dutch constitution knows only the term "Koning" ("King")). Yours faithfully. LeoDavid (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That way, a governing "Queen" is "only" a female King. That's because the term for a Queen consort could be "Queen", but for a governing Queen's husband the term "King" is always unacceptable, because that would mean, in accordance with the Dutch constitution, two Kings synchronistic (such a female one and a male one). That way Queen Beatrix' husband Claus van Amsberg was prince consort, as "Prince of the Netherlands". LeoDavid (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
I have no strong feeling, but think this might be something to discuss at a higher level as it involves consistent naming of articles of ruling monarchs and/or their consorts. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The current lede feels less like a neat introduction to the subject of the article, and more like a rather hostile lecture on the issues underlying this thread. The main editor pushing this at present is an IP. Can we have some better-informed users arrive at a consensus for what to put in the lede, please? Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong Title

[edit]

There is no such title as "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands". Maxima's correct style is "Queen Maxima, Princess of the Netherlands". The Wikipedia article should be renamed accordingly.161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia has never titled its articles in accordance with national laws or practices, but according to the most common name in reputable English sources as interpreted (for articles on royalty and nobility) by the NCROY guideline. Since Maxima is now being called "Queen" by most English sources (and, coincidentally but irrelevantly, by Dutch media and Dutch government websites), and the CONSORTS section of NCROY indicates that for royalty such usage need not wait until Google hits outnumber old references to her as "Princess", "Queen Maxima" is what Wikipedia now refers to her as. FactStraight (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we are letting "what people think is correct" take preference over "what is verifiably correct"? Sounds like the end of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic medium... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.10.9 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands" is an incorrect title? As it doesn't mean the same as the title "Queen of the Netherlands", which would only be correct for the reigning (female) monarch. Maybe someone of the opponents of "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands" could bring any kind of proof that this title is incorrect? In my opinion it is only a short form of her complete title "Queen Maxima, princess of etc.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6A:6C14:3000:F109:C243:B3D1:3E59 (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands is an incorrect title. Even on the website of the Royal House (http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/encyclopedie/protocol-en-ceremonie/titels/) they are very clear that it is not Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, but simply, Queen Máxima. Why not simply use what is correct? People look at Wikipedia to understand how she should be addressed and by giving false information on Wikipedia these people may address her erroneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.193.90.30 (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Dutch isn't very good, but that seems to be saying that the former Princess Maxima is now referred to as Queen Maxima, and that she additionally holds the titles of 'Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau'. It makes no reference to the title 'Queen Maxima of the Netherlands'. But in any case, no-one is going to address the Queen wrongly on the basis of this, because she is properly addressed as 'Your Majesty'. Now, if we called this article "Maxima, Queen of the Netherlands", that would give the incorrect impression that she is the monarch. But we didn't. Can you please accept that "Queen N of X" is a very common way, in English, to refer to queens consort? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, he or she cannot, because he or she is obviously pushing an agenda here. For example, the second thing that he or she believes should be said about the Queen of the Netherlands is that she is "Roman catholic" and that she retained her "Argentinian" citizenship. Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not pushing an agenda here, just an expert on Dutch titles and styles :-) If "Queen N of X" is a very common way in English articles, then that's fine with me personally. For sure I am not an expert on what is common to say in the English language. Fact is: there is an inconsistency in the title of the articles of the various queens (regnant or consort) around the world. Some articles are titled 'Queen N of X', some 'N of X', some 'N', some 'N II' and even others just use their birth name. So to me there does not seem to be a convention on which name to use for a queen. And maybe that can be explained by the fact that there is only one correct way to address each such person, and that is in the actual language of the country in which they are queen (regnant or concort). The English articles merely translate the (correct) national styles and titles, sometimes correctly and at other times wrongly. Oh btw: it was not me who added comments on religion or citizenship, as you can no doubt verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.193.90.30 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try doing that research again, and exclude queens regnant. You won't find a single queen consort who is 'N II' unless (like Mary I of England and Mary II of England and Scotland) she was also queen regnant. (Mary I was queen consort of Spain while queen regnant of England; Mary II's husband, although further down the line of succession, succeeded alongside her at the invitation of parliament, and continued to reign ahead of her sister Anne, the next in line.) For living queens consort specifically, which is the case we have here, every single one of them ought to be 'Queen N of X'. Not 'N of X' (which would imply a sovereign or the daughter of a title-holder), and certainly not 'N, Queen of X', nor 'N II'. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, no offence. I was just trying to find some clarity in what to me seemed an inconsistent treatment. Queen Sirikit, living queen consort of Thailand, is for instance called 'Sirikit'. Queen Masenathe, living queen consort of Leshoto, is for instance called 'Queen Masenate. And Queen Máxima, living queen consort of The Netherlands, is for instance called 'Queen Máxima of the Netherlands'. Those are 3 different ways to me. And I was not aware that living queen consorts are named differently from dead queen consorts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.193.90.30 (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't understand the controversy. Willem-Alexander is the "King of the Netherlands". His wife is simply "Queen Maxima" and that is how the Wikipedia article should be named. Although I don't think it is really necessary, in case someone feels the title should further stress her connection to the Netherlands, I suggest using Maxima's official subsidiary title and rename the article: "Queen Maxima, Princess of the Netherlands". "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands", however, is both incorrect and unacceptable.161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. She's not "Queen of the Netherlands", because she's not "Queen" in her own right. She's only called "Queen Máxima" (because her husband is the King) and she is "Princess of the Netherlands". → "Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands". That makes a big difference. She's a Queen consort, that's it. → http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/encyclopedie/protocol-en-ceremonie/titels/ / http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/globale-paginas/taalrubrieken/deutsch/haufig-gestellte-fragen/ . Also: → http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013729/geldigheidsdatum_01-05-2013 (Artikel 8, 2. a: "De titel «Prins (Prinses) der Nederlanden» kan bij koninklijk besluit uitsluitend worden verleend aan de volgende leden van het koninklijk huis: de echtgenoot of echtgenote van de Koning" -husband or wife of the King -the Dutch constitution knows only the term "Koning" (King), in that way, a governing "Queen" is "only" a female King. That's because the term for a Queen consort could be "Queen", but for a governing Queen's husband the term "King" is always unacceptable, because that would mean, in accordance with the Dutch constitution, two Kings synchronistic (such a female one and a male one). That way Queen Beatrix' husband Claus van Amsberg was prince consort. Yours faithfully, LeoDavid (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully urge that you reverse this unilateral change of the name of this article while a move request is pending, discussion is ongoing, and before it has been concluded by an uninvolved administrator basd upon the consensus which has emerged through dialogue. Please. FactStraight (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But read http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/encyclopedie/protocol-en-ceremonie/titels/ and my opinion above in the discussion. LeoDavid (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're at the beginning again...The title of the article is in accordance with other articles about other queen consorts, like "Queen Silvia of Sweden" or "Queen Sofia of Spain." If the title of this article will be changed, it should also be changed for all other queen consorts. If this will not be done, the title here should also stay as it is. But, then again "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands" is not the same as "Queen of the Netherlands", and I'm still missing any kind of proof that the title "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands" is incorrect. Even the U.N. call her "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands", as seen in [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.241.128 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2013/05/un-queen-maxima/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.241.128 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, the UN? Are you kidding? That UN website also says that she is 'recently crowned' LOL :-) She isn't crowned. Seriously, don't use dubious sources to get your info from. The UN is a great organisation, but knowns nothing of Dutch protocol :-) Maybe you can use Dutch government statements instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.15.42 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..and still I am missing any kind of proof, that the title "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands" is incorrect. By the way, the UN are not a dubious source, although they may not know too much of Dutch protocol. They just use common speech, like most of the people in the world.. More and more I am suspecting some anti-monarchist agenda behind those title changing attempts... (Myself also no monarchist and NOT being bothered if someone is called queen or princess, as those are all rather ceremonial titles:-)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.141.58 (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

It's indeed wrong to use the word 'queen' in the article's title. It's not her title, but just a way to address her out of humility Hare Majesteit de koningin (Her Majesty the Queen). Her official title became after she married the then Prince of Orange and still is Princess. It's been like that for at least over 123 years that the partner of the head of state did not get the opposite sexe's title. In England the same. Prince Philip. Do you think that Camilla or Kate will become Queen when Elizabeth II steps down in favor of her (grand)son or dies and the British anthem suddenly speaks about her?  Klaas|Z4␟V:  08:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article doesn't need to be the title of the subject! Should Elizabeth II abdicate tomorrow, Camilla will become Queen; she will become Queen Consort, and Charles will become King, and the national anthem will be God Save the King. But the title of our article on Elizabeth II is not "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Second of that Name, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom and all her Other Realms Queen, Defender of the Faith", it's Elizabeth II, because that's how we identify her. And we identify living queens consort as "Queen N of X". Nobody is saying that Maxima is the monarch of the Netherlands. I'm not sure how often I can say this. We are not challenging Willem-Alexander's sovereignty. We are not confused about the difference between a queen consort and a queen regnant - at least, I'm not. But there seems to be a fierce determination to introduce highly technical Dutch constitutional issues into the title of this article. That does nothing for clarity; quite the reverse. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think you can overrule Dutch jurisdiction so be it and so help you God Almighty, Cynical mode on The Force, The Flying SpaghettiMonster etc. etc. etc. Cynical mode off, Kind regards from a Dutch expat in Italy,  Klaas|Z4␟V:  11:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't bound by Dutch jurisdiction; it's guided by common usage in English. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you do mention the "title" of Queen consort, where there is no such thing in the Netherlands. So it is obviously and blatantly wrong, but common usage must prevail. Whatever...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.30.65 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why does the Dutch monarchy's own website describe Maxima as queen? AlexTiefling (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It says she will be "referred to" as Queen, with her personal titles (i.e. Princess of the Netherlands and Princess of Orange-Nassau) following her name. Queen consort is mentioned nowhere in the article or anywhere else in Dutch law. The title is non-existant in the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.57.105 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that yes, both Camilla (legally) and Kate will become Queen consorts when their respective husbands become kings. Morhange (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@88.73.57.105: The title did exist for about 123 years since the death of Willem III when his widow became queen until her daughter reached the legal age of 18. Belgium has an exceptional phenomenon having two queens, the widow of Boudewijn and the wife of Albert.  Klaas|Z4␟V:  14:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to explain that this is not that unusual. In 1952, the UK had three queens: the present queen as Queen Regnant, and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Queen Mary as dowager queens consort. All these attempts to claim that in the Dutch context, 'queen' can only mean 'monarch, head of state', just don't hold water. I don't see anyone - not even the Dutch Royal House - using English in that restricted way. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a matter of English usage. The Royal House has been very clear about this point: Máxima has the courtesy title of Queen, as the King's consort, but she does not have the title of "Queen of the Netherlands", which is reserved to sovereign queens only. Máxima's full title and style is now: "Queen Maxima, Princess of the Netherlands" (Koningin Maxima, Prinses der Nederlanden). I don't understand why the English Wikipedia refuses to name her by her correct title. The same argument BTW applies to the article on Mathilde, Queen of the Belgians, whom the English Wikipedia stubbornly insists on calling "Queen Mathilde of Belgium" (another non-existent title !). 161.24.19.112 (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By formal usage she takes the title of her husband who is the King of the Netherlands. Of course therefore she is styled the Queen of the Netherlands. Only not the constitutional Queen of the Netherlands. The Constitution speaks of the monarch as King. Law provides for a situation in which, when a woman reigns, the title Queen is used instead of King. That fact does not discriminate her from taking the female form of her husbands title as Queen of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands she is addressed as H.M the Queen on formal occasions. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2013/05/un-queen-maxima/

Ancestors

[edit]

"Through her father, she is a descendant of King Denis of Portugal and many noble families of the Iberian Peninsula." (→ ???) "She is also a descendant of Túpac Huallpa, a puppet Inca Emperor." (→ ???) This is a valid source ??? → http://factgrabber.com/index.php?q=Princess_M%C3%A1xima_of_the_Netherlands&lcid=ZsnGyaaJB6EnGSaBZLFkkcahxrFkiWax5sHGyQehhhkm I don't think so. In my opinion, she's a descendant of Denis of Portugal's father, King Alfons III. (ilegitimate), but Denis was a legitimate son. → http://www.genealogia.org.ar/maxima.html / http://www.wargs.com/royal/maxima.html . Yours faithfully, LeoDavid (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: She's a descendant of Catalina Paucar Ocllo, a descendant of Túpac Huallpa. → The Heirs of Europe Netherlands (99). LeoDavid (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were only two brother(Huascar and Atuahalpa). Atahualpa try to killed his brother so he can became the Emperedor. When Atuahalpa was made a prisoner instead of asking help from his brother(Huascar) he killed him. After the Spanish killed Atahualpa and their families. You use a web type of group as your references. It show that not only you have poor sources but also they a certain type of intention with your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyone (talk • contribs) 01:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC) --Wendyone (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Queen Sonja of Norway which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility vs. Royalty

[edit]

I disagree with the statement that Máxima was inducted into the Dutch nobility as "Princess of the Netherlands" in 2002 as the article says. "Princess of the Netherlands" and "Princess of Orange-Nassau" are not hereditary titles of nobility, but rather personal titles that are granted to certain members of the Royal House. Those titles are granted under the Membership of the Royal House Act (wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis) and not under the Nobility Act (wet op de adeldom) and, therefore, are not part of the nobility of the Netherlands per se . The children of Prince Constantijn and the late Prince Friso on the other hand bear titles of nobility (count/countess of Orange-Nassau), which are hereditary in male line, and are accordingly listed by the High Council of Nobility (Hoge Raad van Adel) as members of the noble family van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Maxima's Religion

[edit]

It is often mentioned that Queen Maxima is still a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, she didn't marry in the Roman Catholic Church and didn't baptize her daughters in the Roman Catholic Church either. Does she ever attend Mass and take communion in a Catholic Church ? Or does she regularly attend Dutch Reformed services with her family ? I am trying to find any evidence to support the statement that she is still a Catholic as opposed to simply non-religious (which is my educated guess). 161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Dutch royal family can trace back its origin to Protestant uprising against the Catholic Spanish King, it would be plain impossible for the Dutch monarch to marry in a Catholic ceremony; or have its members baptized following Catholic ritual.
Whether Maxima herself is Catholic, has converted to Dutch Reformed, or is simply non-religious is not discussed in the Netherlands. I think most people consider this a private matter (including the press) so chances are no sources are available. Anyway, why is this important at all?

Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is important because her religious affiliation is explicitly mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If it is indeed true that no sources are available to validate that information, then any mention to her religion should be deleted. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not important at all since there can be no sources. Religion and visiting a house of prayers, speaking with a priest etc. are private things as Arnoutf said. There are more non-protestant members in the Dutch royal family. Who cares? Not me and though I live in a catholic country I'm still a Dutch protestant.  Klaas `Z4␟` V 09:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if her religious affiliation were not important, it would not have been explicitly mentioned in the article and, if there are indeed no sources to validate the information that she is Catholic, that should not have been mentioned at all.2804:14C:163:2229:4D94:B0DB:8341:A5C4 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a circular argument. It is in the article because it is important and it is important because it is in the article. The relevance if any, is that Dutch reformed is the traditional religion of the Dutch royal family. So it was relevant to discuss in the light of the religion of her children, but that is about it. (as I outlined above) Arnoutf (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments above have a basic mistake, spouses marry wherever they want, as they are spouses, not priest, peace judge, affidavit or councilman who give sacrament each other, priests just acknowledge marriage exists in front of community, give an special blessing, and issue legal documents.

The indication 'kids not baptized in catholic church', is also misleading: an atheist, a worshiper of shiva, the destroyer, the destroyer of love, the destroyer of worlds, can give a valid baptism, this is a millennial old discussion, and the agreement was reached no need for someone having received baptism in a certain church, let's say british church, to receive baptism again, let's say in catholic church, as long as the wording 'I baptize you in the Name of Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' was kept.

'Cow are from where it graze, not from where it were born'.

It is also wrong that calvinism, or any Lutheran affiliation, was in the origin of implantation in the Netherlands of Orange, a probably hebrew or converse surname, linked to Orange town in Vaucluse (Vallis clausus); after the uprising that attacked bonds with Philip II of Spain, heir of the Burgundy thrones, a republic was instituted. The Orange came later, their arrival involved angry events as death of Jan de Witt; in pure law principles, if something is expropriated for a goal, a republic in this case, and the goal is shut later, from a coming new princes' candidates, the right of reversion applies. 'From Nassau' can be said also as: 'Nassauer', a clerical woman in an Spanish public service introduced a man with surname Nassauer, a menacing guy, as 'Willy Meyer', then head of 'communist party of Spain' (PCE); (P$0€ was called 'spanish communist party' in 1925)

If Maxima Zorreguieta was pressed to have her kids grown under calvinist theology, teachings, and religious ceremonials, this would be a very serious attack to religious freedom, this subject deserves being explicitly stated. Blessings +--Caula (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid reference and a fake Emperor Túpac Huallpa

[edit]

and of Inca princess Catalina Paucar Ocllo, palla del Cuzco, a descendant of a puppet Emperor Túpac Huallpa, a younger brother of Atahualpa.[7][8]

Their was not Puppet Emperor Túpac Huallpa in los Incas and references is a web group.What is next a twitter account or facebook as a reliable sources. Is that a joke or what?

Potencially libellous and poorly sourced

[edit]

Queen Máxima of the Netherlands is a public figure but is also represent the Netherlands monarchy. Sadly someone did not use any credible sources and worst created a fake descendant of the last Inca( who happen to died three months later that was put by Francisco Pizarro). The worst part is that it reference that not show any agreement with what the author want us to think.One references is a like a forum group and the other was a type of blog. IF you wanted to see the real information you were sent to another webpage of a dead man.It was kind of weird. The information was in Spanish but it was a different type of information that was posted in the English information. We are talking about country. I believe this should be seen by others in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyone (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever did this maybe is doing this kind of things to another articles.Let be careful with references--Wendyone (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these sources are very weak and should not be used, for a very grand claim (Inca royal descent no less). At best these sources cab only be used with extreme caution which did not apply here. Arnoutf (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you in that the sources are weak. They are fake. Someone put time and energy to create those sources.One of them was a forum and that was created by the person who invented the fake princess. And to make a claim to a fake Inca princess? Who will waste their time in creating all those fake evidence? And what of kind of moral values this person have? I could never to that. And why they did it? Because she was from Argentine or is someone from a radical group who wants to to show that people from a cetain region have native indigineous blood. I believe you know who is this person. The extreme caution does apply here.I also have my suspicious.--Wendyone (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The building of a bond to an Inca royalty, they were easily defeated by less than one thousand soldiers of Francisco Pizarro because of a civil war, Atahualpa had death penalty under charge of having decided from jail the murder of his brother, could be easily ascribed to sycophants in court (Mircea Eliade used 'Sycophant' as 'delator') A picture including Philip I of Spain, and Maximilian of Habsburg, had the mention, next to Maximilian, of 'Dux Burgundiae', 'head of Burgundy', and 'Virgine Mariae nepos' -Relative of Mary the Virgin-.

Mary seems had roots in Aaron, this matches the supposed findings of population genetics in Sudarium of Oviedo, the piece of fabric, smaller than the Shroud of Turin, used to cover the head of Jesus in his tomb, the man this cloth covered had Druze genetic features. This family bond is too high to be easily accepted. Voltaire, in his 'Philosophical letters', stated: 'Britons don't write history, they write libels', the family of Maxima Zorreguieta is protected by and associated to the family in Buckingham. Blessings +--Caula (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queen Máxima 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Queen Máxima 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity.

[edit]

It says nothing about Maxima being the most popular royal in the Netherlands. It conveniently brings up the "controversy" thing wich was several years ago, and forgets to bring up Maxima being incredibly popular after becoming a queen.

Anyone reading this article would be convinced that Maxima is seen just as a controversial exotic royal. When is actually the contrary! Completely biased article.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen Máxima 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish naming customs reference - Wrong.

[edit]

Spanish naming customs are not, and were not, at least for the past 150 years, used in Argentina. So the reference is erroneous. She might use both paternal and maternal surnames, but that is because Argentine law allows that to happen, not because Spanish naming customs are in use.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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) 05:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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) 16:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title Before Queen

[edit]

I was wondering why she’s called “Mrs. Van Amsberg” at the end of her title upon marriage? I’ve never seen her referred to as such. Lady Meg (talk)< Lady Meg (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's what the citation says (in Dutch). Her husband inherited the title jonkheer and name van Amsberg from his father. The wife of a jonkheer is a mevrouw (madam or Mrs). Celia Homeford (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Máxima_of_the_Netherlands&oldid=1225569891"