This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Done and signed at London, 3 March, N. S. 1700, and 21 Febr. V.S. 1699, by us plenipotentiaries of France and England; and at the Hague, the 25th of the said month of March, 1700, by us plenipotentiaries of France, and of the States General...
It seems to me that there have thus been three signings, two in London (21 February V.S. 1699, and 3 March N. S. 1700), and one in The Hague on 25 March 1700 (N. S.?). If we go by 25 March 1700 as the actual date of signing, why don't we call this article Treaty of The Hague (1700)? Currently, time and place don't match.
Note that the Gregorian calendar#Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates was 11 days after 28 February 1700, so if 25 March 1700 was New Style, it would have been 14 March 1700 Old Style, neither of which conforms with the two dates of the London signings. Whether the latter two are actually the same date is unclear; 3 March minus 21 February is 10 days in a non-leap year (conform the Gregorian calendar year 1700), but 11 days in a leap year (Julian calendar?). Either way, why the date would fall in the year 1699 in O.S. but in 1700 in N.S. makes no sense to me. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The terms of the treaty were only approved by William in June 1699; since Leopold refused to agree the territorial concessions, the Dutch delayed their consent (presumably asking the same "Wtf?" question as the English Parliament when they learned of it), hence the treaty was only formally signed in March 1700. I've amended the wording to clarify this point.
Thanks a lot for your clarifications, they are quite enlightening. I'm content with the title as it is. Questions remain how it became 24 March instead of 25 then, and what the other dates signified. Do you believe the source I quoted above is incorrect about 25 March 1700 being the date of final signature? And may I presume that by 'approved' and 'consent', you mean agreement with a draft version of the treaty, and not the ratification of the signed version? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to clarify (I'll come back on the date). "Approved" means "ok in principle"; "consent" means "ok to sign" but it was William's signature that made it legal (in England at least, you probably know better than me re the Netherlands). Robinvp11 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
