Jump to content

Talk:Succession to the Dutch throne

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

Untitled

[edit]

I reverted the edit which added background info to the reasons for Friso not asking for parliamentary approval of his marriage. This is a factual list of succession with some minor notes as to how it came to be as it is. For more info on the whole Friso-Mabel-Bruinsma affaire, one can click his name ... --Dengo 09:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. It should be parliamentary approval though, not governmental. ... Baszoetekouw 11:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Exellency??

[edit]

I noticed that in this article and some others, the children that are Counts and Countesses of Orange-Nassau get the style of His or Her "Exellency". I never heard about that. No other Dutch Counts are called that either.--81.59.191.137 09:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, doesn't seem right to me either. The Dutch style is "hooggeboren heer" (count) or "hooggeboren vrouwe" (countess) (hooggeboren = "highly born"), by the way. Sixtus 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unborn children

[edit]

Article 26 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands states: For the purposes of hereditary succession, the child of a woman pregnant at the moment of the death of the King shall be deemed already born. If it is stillborn it shall be deemed to have never existed. So, when Princess Maximá or Princess Laurentien is pregnant, the unborn child is in the line of succession. Sixtus 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princes Maurits and Bernhard...

[edit]

...have been removed from the line of succession because they are too distantly related to the reigning King. Therefore they should not be shown in a chart of the current line.

They could return to the line, if their mother were to become Queen (assuming the prior demise of all of Princess Beatrix's descendants). If that happens, they should be added to the chart then. Not before - Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball!

If you disagree, please discuss here so a consensus can be reached. P M C 10:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that they are in the line. What we have there is a graphical representation of relationships between people who are in the line. Princess Beatrix is also there, although she cannot possibly ascend the throne again. In fact, Prince Maurits has a better chance at ascending the throne than Princess Beatrix. See Line of succession to the British throne and Line of succession to the Monegasque throne, both of which feature people who are not in the line but who are there because they are not completely barred from succession or for another reason. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. By including them in the chart, the implication is clear: the article is titled 'Line of Succession to the Dutch Throne' The subsection and chart is titled 'Line of Succession'. As you said just now yourself, it 'is a graphical representation of relationships between people who are in the line.' These two princes are now excluded from the line by the Grondwet, and thus it is clear they should not appear in the chart. Should some disaster befall the 7 higher-placed heirs while their mother is still alive, they will return. That is when they and their children should be added back in. Not before. The only reason the two former queens appear here, is to show how and why Constantijn and Margriet are in line to succeed, otherwise they too would no longer appear, since one is 'constituionally dead' and the other is actually dead.
The notes under the chart make it clear that Margriet has four sons, two of whom could be in line to the throne should she ever come to the throne herself, and explain why it is they are not (currently) in the line of succession. That is the best way to represent this information.
The line of succession to the British throne does not serve as a comparison, because that line is not limited by degrees of kinship as the Dutch throne is. P M C 13:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is making up the implication and the one who should obtain a consensus at the talk page in order to alter an established way of dealing with this issue. Saying that I am "unilaterally and repeatedly reverting" is absolutely ridiculous, given that you are the first of many editors of this page who misunderstood the table. Margriet's elder sons' children were in the graphical representation before Beatrix abdicated although they never had any succession rights. That is because they are not prohibited from ascendng the throne, much like their father's aren't. They are not in the line and that is made very clear by both the graphical representation (the lack of numbers next to their names, their names in italic, etc) and the Notes section. They can, however, be chosen to ascend the throne, unlike Juliana's all other descendants. British and Monegasque lines are comparable to this one because all three feature people who are not presently in the line but who can become a part of it (or whose descendants can become a part of it). Surtsicna (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can one talk of a status quo, of article stability, when the line of succession changed less than a week ago!? The article needed to change. I changed it. At the same time I changed it, I put notes on the talk page explaining what I had done and why. I put a similar note on the change history. The only person who has bothered to raise any objection is you. You decided not to discuss it though, but reverted my change immediately to your previous version, indeed before I had even finished all of my edits. Oh well. I can't be bothered to waste any more time arguing the toss with you. I believe you are wrong, but nevermind. You carry on with 'your' article. I shall leave you to it. P M C 12:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the children of those princes were in the table prior to 30 April.[1] I have also explained why. That is how one can talk of a status quo and article stability. Nobody raised any objections to the presence of their children's names in the table and nobody thought they were in the line, which is not surprising since it was made very clear that they were not in the line. The same is now true for the princes themselves. Princess Margriet is clearly the last one numbered and there are notes explaining the entire situation. As I said, her elder sons and their children are not completely prohibited from ascending, unlike her younger sons and their children and Willem-Alexander's other aunts and their descendants. That is why Margriet's descendants should be in the table. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Line of succession to the Dutch throne. 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) 09:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Succession to the Dutch throne. 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) 08:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

proximity of blood

[edit]

What motivated the proximity rule? It seems relevant only in farfetched circumstances, e.g. the king outlives his own great-grandchildren. If no one survives within the three degrees, is the monarchy automatically abolished? —Tamfang (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is for the line of succession to be not too long and thus to be well known. If no one survives within the three degrees then there will be a procedure to choose a new king or queen. May be, it would be a good proposition for some expert to describe these details on Wikipedia. D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Wilhelmina was the only descendant of her father to survive him. She ascended as a 10-year-old in 1890. The next in line were her cousins who ruled territories in the German Empire and/or had close relationship with the Prussian royal family, which was alarming to the Dutch and even more so to the French and the British. She reached adulthood, which was not a given at the time, and she married but her first three pregnancies ended in miscarriages and a stillbirth. After eight years of marriage she finally had a living child, followed by two more miscarriages. The Germans lost the subsequent First World War and their accession became even less desirable, so the Parliament limited the line of succession to the queen's only child. I agree that this should be explained in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Such an explanation should at least say who was the last ancestor with other eligible descendants; I guess Johann VI, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg? —Tamfang (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit of 13 August 2023

[edit]

This edit is very strange. If it has some sense then it is necessary to clarify the text. Let somebody understanding this topic clarify or delete it. As for now, I will move the text a little down. D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Succession_to_the_Dutch_throne&oldid=1208189567"