Jump to content

Talk:Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands

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

Alexander

[edit]

Gentlemen, if he were to select the name Alexander whenever he becomes King, would not his reignal name be merely Alexander, rather Alexander I? His mother, for instance, does not reign under the name Beatrix I (I am, of course, not attempting to be impolite to other editors.)--Anglius 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. But I don't think he has announced yet which name he will use after succeeding his mother. Unless anyone can provide a reference, I will remove it from the article. Baszoetekouw 10:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He did. I've added a reference. Eugene van der Pijll 12:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he will probably reign as Willem(William) IV. He also noted that in an interview with Paul Witteman. Daimanta (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand visit

[edit]

Not sure if this belongs in the article (or is even relavent) but saw this article in today's newspaper:

"Dutch royals snap at media"

The Prince and Princess are in New Zealand as part of a state visit and was asked by a reporter if they were enjoying their visit to New Zealand, to which the Prince responded "It's none of your business, it's private". It should be noted though that the visit to Queenstown is not part of the NZ taxpayer founded trip. Someone more involved with the article can make a judgement as to whether this belongs in the article. I don't know enough about the Dutch royal family to know if this is out of character or not. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark or light?

[edit]

On the picture in this article (and other pictures) the titleperson is darkhaired (so called "darkblond"). On most other press-pictures however, the titleperson is (sometimes very) lightblond (as good as whiteblond). In case insiders can confirm, that the titleperson often or mostly appears with bleached hair, this might be a relevant fact, to be mentioned in the text. James Blond 04:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By now this isn't a question any more. The answer is confirmative. Still a question however is wether apart from his spouse, who is as good as always bleached, also the two oldest descendants are bleached already, which might lead to the impression, that this is a hereditive characteristic. James Blond 04:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Orange?

[edit]

How can somebody be Prince of Orange, when Orange isn't a princedom any more, for a long time, but simply a town in France? That guy is Prince of the Netherlands and nothing but that. James Blond 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for a title of nobility to survive the demise of the political entity to which it was tied. The title 'Prince of Orange' is an excellent example. It could be argued that most noble titles function this way. You won`t find a Duke of Norfolk that actually rules Norfolk, or anything else. --Isolani 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After all, the House of Wittelsbach (past monarchs of Bavaria) still claims the title of King of Jerusalem, if I remember right. Nyttend 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be "not uncommon", but that doesn't take away, that it is unrealistic and even nonsensical. If Cassius Clay would still call himself World boxingchampion, than people would ask themselves, what went wrong with him. He's "former W-champion", even if his mother would still call him W-champion. It wouldn't be accepted, when somebody, would call him "W-champion" in the Wikipedia-article, because it simply is not true. James Blond 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's true. He is recognized by the Dutch government (and therefore, I guess, by any other government) as Prince of Orange. You don't see to grasp the concept of titles of nobility. They do not usually imply a claim on a territory. Känsterle 09:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even more, Prince Willem-Alexander does not simply claim the title, he's legally allowed to use the title "Prince of Orange", this according to the Treaty of Utrecht and the Treaty of Partage I believe. Demophon 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orange has nothing to do with the actual city. The Dutch would then also say Orange, which they don't. It's Oranje (as in the colour). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.208.34 (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just nonsense. Känsterle (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. His name in Dutch (which by the way is what he is) is van Oranje-Nassau. Oranje is the Dutch word for the colour orange, but has nothing to do with the Dutch word for the city of Orange, which is Orange in Dutch also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.42.250 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is!!!I can tell you that as a citizen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Orange has indeed become the national colour of the Netherlands, because the royal family is of the House of Orange-Nassau. The title Prince of Orange (in Dutch "Prins van Oranje") did came from the former Principality of Orange (just "Oranje" or "Prinsdom Oranje" in Dutch) which had the city of Orange as its capital. The Principality of Orange was formed in 1163 when Emperor Frederick I granted the former County of Orange full independence within the Holy Roman Empire. The principality was part of scattered holdings of the Orange-Nassau house since William I "the Silent" inherited the title of Prince of Orange in 1544, until it was finally ceded to France in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. Following the French Revolution of 1789, Orange was absorbed into the French département of Drôme, then Bouches-du-Rhône, then finally Vaucluse. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna took care of a French sensitivity by stipulating that the (then new) kingdom of the Netherlands would be ruled by the House of Oranje-Nassau - "Oranje," not "Orange" as was custom until then. The English language, however, continues to use the out-dated term of Orange-Nassau. Nowadays, both Georg Friedrich of Prussia and Dutch crown prince Willem-Alexander carry the title "Prince of Orange", Willem-Alexander in the official form of Prins van Oranje. So in short the name (not the surname of the prince but on of his titles) Orange/Oranje came from the former Principality of Orange! Not just the colour, because that would indeed be nonsense! The principality is gone, but the title remains. Peter Maas\talk 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty name v/s Surname

[edit]

Can someone clarify for me what this is for Prince William-Alexander? for the Prince of Wales, the dynasty name is Windsor, whereas his personal surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.Drachenfyre 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastic name would be Oranje-Nassau, with the most common family name being 'van Oranje' however any member of the royal family can use the surname of any other noble title they hold. The prince has used the surname 'van Buren' when running the NY Marathon and was entitled to using it as being Count van Buren as well. --Isolani 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: The Prince of Wales does not have a legal surname as a titled royal. William Alexander probably does not have one as well. Sometimes though, informal surnames are used where one is required. Charles 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His surname is van Oranje-Nassau. I vonH (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well....yes and no. It's as Charles says: Royals do not have legal surnames, but they use sometimes informal ones. Naming of royals and nobility is different regulated than for normal civilians; this is because it's historically different developed. The naming of civilians is of course given name + surname. Royals and nobility are named given name + title (nobility also given name + nobility rank (i.e. count, etc.) + surname). So concerning Prince Willem-Alexander it can be: Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange; Willem-Alexander, Prince of the Netherlands; Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange-Nassau; or Willem-Alexander, Jonkheer van Amsberg. They are all correct; in practice the first one is used, since this is the highest and most specific title. However, Oranje-Nassau is the formal dynasty name of this family, so sometimes the prince is named with Willem-Alexander van Oranje-Nassau (or in English Willem-Alexander of Orange-Nassau). In a lot of articles and encyclopedia they sometimes name royals with this "given name + dynastyname". This way of naming is also used with a lot of royals, nobility and monarchs at Wikipedia, especially with persons of centuries ago. Although common practice, this is nonetheless not really correct in the strict rules of naming. This leads by the way to annoying errors: Princess Maxima of the Netherlands is sometimes named Maxima of the Netherlands and Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands sometimes Beatrix of the Netherlands. Here "the Netherlands" is used like a sort of surname!
Furthermore, if Prince Willem-Alexander would have a surname, it's the one of his father, i.e. von Amsberg. However, via a royal decree the name of his father was changed into: Prins Claus George Willem Otto Frederik Geert der Nederlanden, Jonkheer van Amsberg. So I think that since he became a royal prince the normal naming for civilians doen't matter anymore.
If you want to know more about the titles and names of the children (including Prince Willem Alexander) of Queen Beatrix, see Royal Decree 18 February 1966 (if you can read Dutch) Demophon (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His mother outranked his father thus he has her surname- van Oranje-Nassau. I vonH (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rank has little to do with it, it is more the desire of the sovereign. A higher ranking mother does not automatically give her surname to her children unless provisions have been made to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does, but you obviously know little of such thingsI vonH (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay no attention to this meatpuppet/sockpuppet. Charles 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daimanta (talk • contribs) [reply]
The Reigning dynast always passes on their surname, or else produces a new one (as with "Windsor-Mountbatten", which was basically made up). So yes, the desire of the sovereign is what's important. The concept of rank does not even exist at the royal level, except insofar as the sovereign desires it. The sovereign has absolute control over the question of who inherits what, including name and title. One may appeal to tradition, but that tradition only exists due to the whims of previous monarchs, who do not collectively outweigh the reigning monarch. This question falls under what is called House law, which is internal policy of a dynasty, and can be whatever they want. --70.131.61.137 (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; house designation usually comes from the father, regardless of rank, unless specified otherwise in specific legislation (e.g. the 1952 order-in-council regarding the british royal house name.) To illustrate, Queen Victoria of the UK was a member of the house of welf, or guelph in english. she married prince albert of saxe-coburg and gotha, who was from the saxon house of wettin. thus, her son Edward VII, was officially of the house of wettin, also known as the house of saxe-coburg and gotha. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is incorrect.

[edit]

To make sure he flies enough miles a year, so that he can hold his license to fly, he also regularly flies the Dutch Royal Airplane when he and his family travel abroad.

Pilot's licenses are generally regulated in terms of flight hours, not miles. --70.131.61.137 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambique

[edit]

There should be some info about the controversy about his investments in Mozambique. Parafernalia (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would also love to see a mention of the Chingada incident because I think it's hilarious, but I fear it's probably not important enough to merit a mention in the article ;-) Skysmurf (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010 copy edits

[edit]
>On the synthesis, the RVD stated that was the reason for the media code. But alright, not that important.
The sarcoidosis: alright, if you insist. It just seems weird to me not to mention that the heir-apparent to a throne suffers from a chronic, potentially debilitating, potentially deadly disease.
On your edits of the photo-op thing, I would like to ask you to reconsider the extent of your removals. Right now you've removed the detailing of the media code, including the fact that the press gets a photo-op with every occasion. From a (Dutch) legal point of view that is important, since it means that the "freedom of the press" argument is far less reasonable. Not explaining that makes the situation and the verdict harder to understand for outsiders (and might even be considered problematic with regards to WP:NPOV, since it seems to bolster AP's position in the case). -- BenTels (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>With regards to Machangulo, the thought occurs that the best solution might even be to make reference to it in the article on Willem-Alexander and then move the body of the current text to a main article. This because I fear you're going to have to pair the length down so far from a balance point of view that you'll have to make what actually happened impossible to understand. -- BenTels (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the sarcoidosis, Since it is not affecting his health right now, it should be left out. Many people have health problems but for our purposes it should be omitted until such time as it impacts his Public life. At this point the presumption is in favour of privacy.
Let's put in a brief explanation of the Netherlands rules on the photo-op thing. I assumed that this sort of procedure would be normal for public figures around the world, but you are right, it needs a little more context.
Machangulo: What might work is to list the main points we wish to make about the incident and then see if we can find good sources for each of them. If the resulting section is too long and still overwhelms the article, we could spin it off into a separate article. Thoughts?
Here are the main points that I see; please add any I missed.
  • The development was to provide benefits to locals and those benefits did not seem to be forthcoming, or were delayed.
  • Reports of corruption and embezzlement by a contractor
  • reports of loss of fishing rights when a beach was closed
  • Reports of a protest quelled by gunfire
  • some people question the morality of building a resort in such a poor country
  • A foundation was formed to distance the prince from the development, but it was headed by one of his friends and a co-investor in the development
  • The prince and princess decide to sell the property once the house is completed.

Diannaa TALK 14:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not considered a reliable source for the reasons given here. Diannaa TALK 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diana,
On the photo-op: agreed. I suggest you review what I had earlier and propose the extra text needed (with an eye towards not letting it get too big -- I tend to get long-winded ;-) ). After that I can confirm that your proposal covers the essentials.
On Machangulo: At the very heart of it (and with an eye towards a spin-off article), the essential points seem to me to be as follows:
  • Willem-Alexander and Máxima decided to invest in the project because it appealed to them for many different reasons (no need to specify which exactly other than perhaps "both personal and their interest in developmental cooperation").
  • In the 2008-2009 period different reports of problems with and criminal activities surrounding the project led to increasing public disapproval of the couple's involvement. Again, no need to get into which reports exactly -- otherwise you have to get into listings of co-investors, embezzlement, murder, rumors about personal behavior that made Willem-Alexander look bad in the public eye (true or not) and reports that turned out to be false but simply looked bad anyway, all of it simply to make the point about rising public disapproval. Plus most of it doesn't necessarily pertain to the Prince directly but just served to harm his public image.
  • In November 2009, the public disapproval took on a political dimension with questions in parliament and the prime minister having to defend the Prince in public.
  • End November Willem-Alexander responded to public and political sentiment by deciding to quit the project.
That list (I think) covers the story as it pertains directly to Willem-Alexander: how he got involved, impact on his position as heir-apparent, political implications, out. Everything else pertains to the local circumstances in Mozambique, the impact on the local population, the investors in the project and so on — and can go in a separate article to focus on the details.
For sources, I'm pretty sure I got all of it in the references I included. Much of it is in Dutch, although NRC International edition has a summary in English from right after the announcement of the couple getting out of the project. Among the Dutch references I have an article about the announcement describing the project. Also, here is archive footage from a Dutch news service of a summer interview with Willem-Alexander and Maxima in which they explain (among others) why they love Africa and wanted to participate in the project. The same news service includes footage of the announcement of the sale. His contact with the Mozambican president is covered in the Algemeen Dagblad reference, as is the denial by Balkenende of the army putting down the protest. The "Als (g)een paal boven water" source is an interview on Dutch television with a royalty reporter in which he details the embezzlements, the police chief and the questionable neighbors. Mention of the closed beach and denial thereof is also mentioned. And the overview article from NRC international details comments from politicians and questions asked in parliament. If necessary, the NOS news service has footage of the parliamentary questions and the answers by the prime minister, plus I can probably find the official transcripts of the parliamentary debates online. There are also articles from all sorts of newspapers and other periodicals online that I didn't include but can provide if necessary. -- BenTels (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's for now focus on a compact write-up for the purposes of this article and leave a more detailed article on the incident itself for another time as I have other commitments, both on Wikipedia and in real life.
Is there a transcript available for the Dutch language interview? Since this is the English language wikipedia we have to assume the reader has no knowledge of Dutch language. Written sources can be translated easily enough though.
The thing we have to do is make a point in the article and then cite the source for that point. If there is no reliable source for that point, we cannot include it. I have re-worked the photo-op section and started on Machangulo; the first paragraph is done.
Particular items that need a source at this point include the allegation that people were being prevented from fishing, and the allegation that a protest was stopped by gunfire. Do you have any sources for those two points? --Diannaa TALK 18:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No transcipts I'm afraid (I would have used those if I had them). To make a concise point I would suggest following the outline I sketched above, based solely on the NRC International page (the English one). That will cover the entire outline above.
I don't have sources that confirm the allegations you mention and cannot: I have sources confirming the allegations were false. My point in mentioning the allegations was that all sorts of allegations were being made (even false ones) leading to public disapproval of the project and the prince's involvement. --BenTels (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What we can do is put a general statement that there was controversy and a swirl of rumors, as long as one of the sources says that. I will have a look. Diannaa TALK 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reworked and compact version is now up and ready for review. I will check back later for any comments/criticisms. Diannaa TALK 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what you have now is good. It covers the essentials, it's enough information not to leave the reader hanging but not too much for a general article on Willem-Alexander and it's a good place for a link to a more in-depth article at a later date. Let's leave it like this.

Dana, thanks for the assist! -- BenTels (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. An interesting article! it was fun. Happy editing! Diannaa TALK 02:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King William IV

[edit]

we're going to have to redo the whole thing now won't we?Ericl (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. We'll just move the article and insert new information. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it has already been noted, but it has been announced he will reign as King Willem-Alexander, not King Willem IV. P M C 21:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to me that they are trying to avoid monarchical ordinals altogether. None of the three monarchs that reigned since 1890 had one, and none of the two that are expected to ascend will have one. Surtsicna (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather odd, as the three female monarchs merely had no ordinal due to being the first of their respective names. Anyways, perhaps we should hold off from mentioning the future monarchial name, as William could easily change his mind. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beatrix or Catharina-Amalia could have been named after a previous female monarch, thus resulting in Wilhelmina II, Juliana II, Wilhelmina III or Beatrix II. For some reason, they are simply trying to avoid ordinals. As for the name, we have sourced information; there is no reason not to use it. Surtsicna (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly, it will be some time before his "most common name" is "King Willem-Alexander" rather than "Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange". This is a perfect example of why, when it comes to royalty, we don't wait until his new name+title becomes as well-known as his present one: unlike most people in life, his changed name is expected to be used from a designated date in his future -- and the public is expected to make that transition instantaneously. Wikipedia would look ridiculous if it adhered to its stahdard naming policy on this. Something that should be, if not already, enshrined at NCROY. FactStraight (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he will be known as King Willem-Alexander immediately. His inauguration will be broadly covered and it will make little sense for anyone to refer to him as a prince. Besides, it will be fairly easy to just move the article to "Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands", a title that would not be inaccurate even now. Surtsicna (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the effect of the name choices they've been making over the past century or more has been to obviate the use of ordinals. But do we know that it has been deliberately done that way in order to avoid ordinals? And if so, does this mean there's a formal policy that no monarch will ever have anyone in the line of succession named after them? This seems completely contrary to traditional European (and Dutch) practice, whereby the primary way of honouring a monarch of great renown is to name people after them. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it has been done precisely to avoid ordinals. This man could reign as Willem IV; in fact, that was expected. However, it was decided that he would reign as Willem-Alexander instead. I am not sure why they are doing this, but I suspect it is yet another attempt to modernize a monarchy. Perhaps ordinals are now considered "undemocratic" or "outdated", much like coronations (kings of Norway haven't been crowned since 1906 because coronations are now seen as "undemocratic and archaic"). Ridiculous, really. Surtsicna (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that "it seems" is the construction you are placing on it. Is there anything on record about the actual intention behind this, assuming there is such an intention? If this has been a firm policy for well over a hundred years, there must be something about it on the record, just as the Norwegian view of coronations is on the record, which is how we get to know about it. Willem-Alexander has always been known as Willem-Alexander, never just as Willem. (He's no different in this respect from Pope John Paul I, who continued the lines of neither Popes John nor Popes Paul.) But if it was "expected" he would become Willem IV, what does that say about this supposed spurning of regnal numbers? Who was doing the expecting? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not advocating mentioning this trend in the article because I don't believe we will be able to find a source. According to this article and the non-existent page it has as a reference, Willem-Alexander himself believed that he would reign as Willem IV. He must have changed his mind very recently. Surtsicna (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to a non-existent source, eh? The Moon is made of green cheese, according to a non-existent source. C'mon, Surt, get real. Let's talk about what we can actually verify, and leave the magazine gossip to the magazines. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I did not insert the source or the information. I am not even arguing in favour of mentioning this; I thought I made that clear. Surtsicna (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you're still debating it here. This is a place for discussing improvements to the article, not a general discussion of the subject. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a remark that was followed by two completely unrelated comments and then came your response to my remark. Strictly speaking, you made the debate out of my sideline observation. Anyway, thank you for informing me about the purpose of the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this article says that it was always assumed that Willem-Alexander would reign as Willem IV, since that is a tradition, and that the Prince of Orange himself said in an interview that he would ascend as Willem IV. It also goes on to say that it was assumed in 1948 that Juliana Louise Emma Marie Wilhelmina would reign as Wilhelmina II, and that it was again assumed in 1980 that Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard would ascend as Wilhelmina II. Evidently, the Dutch like ordinals but have bad hunches. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so that sort of supports what I was saying above. There is no general dislike of ordinals, quite the reverse in fact. Thanks. See, all's right with the world after all.  :) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? If three monarchs in a row had, among their given names, a name under which previous monarchs reigned yet they decline to use such a regnal name, I'd interpret that as indicating the old tradition is no longer holding sway. I agree with Surtsicna that this constitutes a new trend. A "trend" isn't a declared policy -- it's a habit noticed by others, which is all that Surtsicna was doing when she said, "It seems..." Bringing it to our attention here encourages us to look about for any factors or comments that might confirm or contradict that trend. Lack of such sources doesn't mean there's no new trend, only none that can be sourced in the article. Yet. Perhaps previous Dutch kings wanted to use other names but didn't feel free to defy tradition, whereas the accession of Wilhelmina afforded an opportunity to go in a different direction. Willem-Alexander, feeling the tug of both past practices, has now cast his vote with the new rather than the old. Monarchs haven't usually divulged why they chose their regnal name, but perhaps widespread interest and speculation will yet evoke an explicit royal comment. We'll see. FactStraight (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. Queen Beatrix declined to use the second of her three given names, and Queen Juliana declined to use the fifth of her five given names, and this somehow proves that the tradition of using regnal numbers has been abandoned? It does no such thing. All it proves is they continued to use their first given name, the name by which they were known all their lives before acceding. Completely in accordance with the general expectation. Just because someone assumed they'd both take the name Wilhelmina means absolutely nothing; what actually happened, that's what we're on about here.
But for the sake of showing I can mind-bend as well as anyone, here's a scenario: Prince Philip (UK) dies; he's into his 90s and he's had a few hospital visits lately, so that could realistically happen any time. Then Queen Elizabeth II dies a couple of months later. Prince Charles becomes king, and in honour of his recently deceased father, for whom he's still in official mourning, he chooses to be known as King Philip (his second given name) rather than King Charles III (his first) or King George VII (his fourth). Would that indicate the UK monarchs are now abandoning regnal numbers? Was this ever said about Queen Victoria? Never. Queen Elizabeth I was always known as plain Queen Elizabeth, until it became apparent when Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 that there was going to be a second regnant Queen Elizabeth (not to mention their new queen consort was also called Elizabeth). But for over 300 years the Brits were happy to call the first one just "Queen Elizabeth", without any regnal number, because she was the only one of that name they'd ever had. But that meant precisely nothing about any general practice of using, or not using, regnal numbers. Same is true in NL. They've only ever had one Wilhelmina, one Juliana and one Beatrix. Sure, it's worthy of note that they've had 3 monarchs in a row without a regnal number, and they may even have a fourth. But it's also worthy of note that they've had 3 queens in a row, and no king for well over a century. Most unusual, I don't know of any precedent for that in Europe. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. All we know about the soon-to-be king is that he has always been known as "Willem-Alexander", never just "Willem". Why did his parents choose to hyphenate his first name rather than express it as two separate names? We'll probably never know, but without evidence (which I've been calling for for days, assuming it exists, which it probably doesn't), we cannot assume that it was to continue the "tradition" of dispensing with regnal numbers. It's a coincidence, not a tradition. It's no more a tradition than the American Presidency has a "tradition" that the incumbent president is from a different state than his predecessor. That may be what it looks like up till now, but the next 10 presidents might all be from Hawaii.
None of this speculation advances our knowledge of whether the new Dutch king will be "King Willem IV" or plain "King Willem-Alexander". We have to wait and see. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that at this point it is nothing more than an induction in the absence of any statements by the royal family or the Dutch Government Information Service (RVD). I remember that the Prince of Orange indicated in the past that he would ascent the throne as Willem IV, which is why the confusion might have arisen. Regardless, the RVD has announced his coronation as King Willem-Alexander, not Willem IV. While I think that this is quite authoritative, I do not see the need to change the article directly. He is not king yet.—Totie (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The news article I cited provides some interesting material. This Wiki article can safely say that Willem-Alexander is the third monarch in a row whose choice of a regnal name came as a surprise, for example. By the way, I'm a he - not that it matters, just a piece of trivia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be moved the moment Beatrix abdicates & William's monarchial name will be known by then. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the article should be moved on the day he ascends the throne. My point was that, strictly, Wikipedia's policy requires bean-counting: this man has lived for 40+ years as Prince Willem-Alexander, so no matter how much coverage of his new name and title occurs, it will not immediately equal the amount of published coverage under his old name. In theory, Wikipedia's policy requires that we wait until that happens to re-name the article. I'm saying, that policy is wrong, and it will always be wrong with respect to new monarchs, their consorts, heirs-apparent, etc -- and that is why royalty is justified in having a specific naming policy distinct from that applicable to other WP bios. FactStraight (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All we really have for Willem-Alexander versus Willem IV is an off-hand remark by the Prime minister I believe. He might very well still come out as Willem IV. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he might. But endlessly speculating here about something that may or may not happen is not the thing to do. If that's the name he chooses, we'll deal with it then. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have more than just an off-hand remark. The Royal Family website currently states on its frontpage: "Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid de Prins van Oranje is vanaf het moment van de abdicatie Koning Willem-Alexander". Herculaas (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One possible explanation is that he just did not want to be one of two Kings William (William IV and William V). 195.169.141.54 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hello Magazine, he's going to take the name William IV. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the same Hello! magazine that's recognised worldwide as the fount of all official knowledge of such matters? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read the link, further down, they're suggesting Willem-Alexander. I wish he'd wisen up & take the name William IV. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Dutch Monarchy's website he is taking the name King Willem-Alexander. He said as much in a televised interview. Martinvl (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be moved to William-Alexander of the Netherlands on 30 April

[edit]

Since it's definitely been confirmed that he won't be William IV on 30 April, I think the page should be moved to "William-Alexander of the Netherlands" rather than "Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands" once he officially becomes king. He'll likely be called "William-Alexander" in non-Dutch sources. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 00:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt so. Those days are gone. I very rarely read about Margaret II of Denmark, Charles XIV Gustav of Sweden, John Charles of Spain, John Adam II of Liechtenstein, Henry of Luxembourg, etc. Besides, it would have been "William Alexander". Surtsicna (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the resulting inconsistencies are frustrating. A likely future example - Felipe VI of Spain, GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The English-speaking people have done this even to British monarchs, e.g. William the Conqueror, the first monarch to be given a regnal number (as William I), was Guillaume as far as he was concerned, and he spoke no English. More recently, William III was a Dutch-speaking Willem, and George I was a German-speaking Georg.
William the Conqueror was certainly not "Guillaume," a modern French spelling -- early Norman-French preserved the sound of /w/ (as any number of English words borrowed from Norman-French show: wafer, waif, wait, waive, war, warden, wardrobe, warrant, waste, wile, etc.) and in the 11th century the change of /l/ to /u/ between a vowel and a consonant had not yet occurred even in Parisian French. Contemporary sources consistently show that his name was actually Willelm.RandomCritic (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's wider than that. We're terribly inconsistent about these things, even now, but extremely rigid in our inconsistencies. Whether the last Russian tsar gets Nicholas or Nikolai depends on the level of the intended audience. It's always Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky because "Peter Tchaikovsky" is considered inaccurate and passé, but it's still "Peter the Great", never "Pyotr the Great". Then there's Ivan the Terrible, never "John the Terrible". He always sounds like a Welsh despot to me, the way people pronounce "Ivan" in anything but the Russian way. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely natural and expected that English-speaking people refer to their monarchs by English-language version of their names. As far as I know, that is the norm in Europe. The names of most foreign monarchs, especially medieval ones, are also "adapted". In fact, even Elizabeth II is commonly called Isabel II in Castilian, Alžběta II. in Czech, Elizabeta II in Bosnian, Elisabetta II in Italian, Élisabeth II in French, Elżbieta II in Polish, II. Erzsébet in Hungarian, etc. That said, I am certain that Willem-Alexander will remain Willem-Alexander in English. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should take our cue from the English language version of the Dutch royal family website. If that version writes his name as Willem-Alexander, we should follow suite. Almost all modern western European nations have English language versions of their websites as English has become the diplomatic language. Additionally, if English language media outlets refer to Willem-Alexander or William-Alexander in text or in pronunciation, the we could use that as an indicator too. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And a comment to Surtsican'a comment of regnal names in foreign language websites, I think the biggest difference between the English language and the other languages is that English is large enough to comfortably incorporate localized "foreign" names into its own diction, at least today. I think that owes to the internationalization of English to a degree. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Monogram

[edit]

The article displays a "Royal Monogram" image. Source is missing on the text and the image. If that's actually a "Royal Monogram", how can the copyright of the image be CC/GFDL?[1][2] Maybe someone just made this whole thing up. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image was added to the article on 17 January 2011 by user Fry1989 with this edit, and the image was added on 15 January 2011‎ to Commons by [3]. I think that user just created something with an image manipulation program. The "Royal Monogram" looks unprofessional, that's why I got suspicious and started looking into this. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to remove the monogram, and point to this section in the edit summary. I'm the only person who appears to care about this, so I'm just going to WP:BB. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slav?

[edit]

He's most likely a genetic Slav, isn't he? СЛУЖБА (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Er, no?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His lineage goes back to a 17th century village blacksmith from eastern Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Even now Rostock has 31% haplogroup R1a1a-M17. The Lusatian Sorbs are 63-75% R1a1a-M17. Even the Ducal House of Mecklenburg were Slavs, let alone the common folk... СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you assume that females do not contribute any genetic material to their descendants - which they do. Considering only patrilineal ancestors in this case is absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a question of terminology. The question that really interests me is whether he's R1a1a, and if yes, whether his R1a1a is from Slavs or some other Indo-European branch. СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean 'does his patriline go back to a Slavic ancestor then yes, quite probably. But that does not make him a 'genetic Slav' any more than the House of Mecklenburg is. True, they may be directly descended from Niklot of the Odobrites, a Slav, but there's been such a huge addition of German blood between those generations that any Slavic element is now negligee. Same goes for the House of Amsberg and by extension Willem-Alexander and his brothers. More to the point, I'm willing to wager the number of German families, particularly from eastern Germany, that have a patrilineal ancestor who was Slavic would be quite high, and I don't see how it's remotely notable.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y-DNA can't be negligee. Also, descent in almost any place in the world including Europe is traditionally traced through patrilineage. СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I made the point because he's King of the Netherlands, not Germany. СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why go to the trouble of analysing his DNA? You just have to trace the ancestry lists in this article and the one on Willem III to see that one of his great-great-great-grandfathers (if I counted it right) was Tsar Paul of Russia. Not that it's terribly significant, anyway. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes him (making abstraction of the rumours about Paul's paternity) not a pure Slav, but a German as Paul's father Peter III was a German prince (son of Charles Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp and Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna) and his mother Catharine the Great (born Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst) was a German princess. The Slavic link through the Romanov's goes through Paul's grandmother Anna, who was Peter the Great's eledest daughter. Suffice to say that any Slav blood is very diluted by now.
You could as easily make the argument that the Orange's are pure Germans. After all, they were German princes who generation upon generation married other German aristocrats. See Willem-Alexander's Orange descent:
Queen Beatrix who married Claus von Amsberg
Queen Juliana who married Prince Bernard von Lippe-Biesterfeld
Queen Wilhelmina who married Duke Henry von Mecklenburg-Schwerin
King William III who married Emma of Waldeck-Pyrmont
King William II who married Anna Paulowna (daughter of Paul of Russia, see above)
King William I who married princess Wilhelmina of Prussia (daughter of King Frederick William II of Prussia)
Stadholder William V who married princess Wilhelmina of Prussia (daughter of Prince Augustus William of Prussia)
Stadholder William IV who married Anne, Princess Royal (daughter of George II of the UK, and as a Hannoverian also a German)
Stadholder John William Friso who married Landgravine Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel
Henry Casimir II, Prince of Nassau-Dietz who married Henriëtte Amalia of Anhalt-Dessau
William Frederick, Prince of Nassau-Dietz who married Albertine Agnes of Nassau
Ernest Casimir I, Count of Nassau-Dietz who married Sophia Hedwig of Brunswick-Lüneburg
John VI, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg (brother of William of Orange, also known as William the Silent, who is seen as the father of the fatherland in the Netherlands) who married Elisabeth of Leuchtenberg
-- fdewaele, 2 May 2013, 14:30 CET.
Nicholas I of Russia had Y-DNA specific for the north of Germany. So, Paul I was likely the real son of Peter III. I have also read claims that Nicholas I matched other members of the House of Oldenburg, but was unable to get the source of these. СЛУЖБА (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was interested in the direct male line. By the way, fathers of 2 out of 3 recent Regnants of the Netherlands were from Mecklenburg. СЛУЖБА (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that one's y-chromosome haplogroup was irrelevant, in fact, far from it. But your genes are made up of more than just your patrilineage. Also, what does his being King of the Netherlands have to do with his y-chromosome coming originally from a Slavic ancestor? I mention Germany precisely because the von Amsbergs are a german family, and all of Willem-Alexander's immediate paternal forebears were of german ancestry and german nationality. Bearing in mind that he inherited the throne through three generations of female ancestors, his patrilineal descent, whilst marginably notable, is hardly massively important.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And even if it were, as I noted above, even if you include his matrilineal descent, even that's German. -- fdewaele, 2 May 2013, 14:32 CET.
It's important that fathers of 2 of 3 recent Regnants of the Netherlands were from Mecklenburg, and at least one is a Y-DNA Slav. СЛУЖБА (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a picture of the new King being coronated? As in, him wearing the Crown of the Netherlands, if one exists. --99.157.108.186 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown was present at the ceremony, but he never wore it. The Netherlands have investitures, not coronations. Also, the verb is "crowned". СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Crown of the Netherlands is never worn, so there won't be a photo of him wearing it. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endash

[edit]

How long until we move this to Willem–Alexander of the Netherlands? It's not easily typeable, and it's not the most common name, but so what? Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, no. I've often thought our usage of endashes was ridiculous, and there's no point using them in article titles when no-one can easily type them. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

[edit]

I boldy moved this page to Willem-Alexander, King of the Netherlands in accordance with WP:SOVEREIGN para 4:

  • "Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state [and] there is no ordinal, the format John, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain is recommended, although exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis..."

RandomCritic (talk · contribs) reverted, citing consistency with Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Juliana of the Netherlands (to say nothing of now-Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands.) The question for discussion is: are the four most recent Dutch monarchs to be consistently exempt from the above-quoted paragraph 4, or are they to be consistently bound by it? DBD 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the rationale in the first place to have a difference title style between numbered and not-numbered monarchs. I do also think that rest from the piece you quote
  • "...although exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy, e.g. John of Bohemia, Alexander Jagiellon."
might be applicable. I personally don't see why there should be the difference between numbered and not numbered monarchs and would be opposed to the move, unless I would hear a compelling argument in favour of the different title style. CRwikiCA talk 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to understand why the policy is why it is, you should discussion in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (and/or her archives.) Regardless, the policy is as it is, so what we are discussing is whether these four are exempt. If you wish to challenge the policy, you should start a discussion on that talk page. DBD 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not wanting to challenge the policy. The policy itself is not set in stone either. I am not significantly involved in editing about royalty and I am not willing to spend time looking through archives. My default position for any contested change/move is oppose, unless I understand the rationale for the change/move.
That being said, if there never has been any real discussion about these four Dutch monarchs article titles. Then that would imply there was implicit consensus for the current phrasing and they would be exempt from #4. Another argument could follow from what is most commonly used in the English language, although that might be hard to figure out or there might be multiple common uses. CRwikiCA talk 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that "X, King of Y" is suggested for numberless monarchs is because "X of Y" is usually ambiguous. My personal preference would be to use "X #, King of Y" for numbered monarchs, as well, but "X # of Y" is typically less ambiguous (thought not always), and so there wasn't a consensus on that front. I'd certainly support moving them all, although it's not a terribly big deal either way, since in this individual case the names are unique enough that there isn't too much ambiguity. john k (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi guys, my 5 cents on this (we don't use 2 €cent coins anymore in the Netherlands ;-) ) - the official legal name/title of a King or Queen of the Netherlands is "Koning(in) <insert name here> der Nederlanden" (in Dutch) as per the Dutch constitution (article nl:Koning der Nederlanden). The current article titles are a direct rendition of this name in English. This could be why all the articles are named as such and might be a ground for keeping these exceptions. Niels? en | nl 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing ambiguity is a good point for the rule, even though there might not be any ambiguity in these four cases. An additional point is that the three female monarch were both King and Queen which might complicate matters more. Legally their role and rank was King of the Netherlands. Do either of you have any thoughts on that? CRwikiCA talk 21:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC) (Edit conflict as well, but good that Niels mentioned the same point. CRwikiCA talk 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Could you provide some kind of source for the claim that "legally" Wilhelmina, Juliana, and Beatrix were actually Kings of the Netherlands? Their Dutch wikipedia articles certainly don't seem to claim this - they call them Koningin, not Koning. john k (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch constitution, parts about the King, only specifies Koning (you can click through below each article for a page which includes an English translation). It is correct that the female Kings of the Netherlands are often called Queen, even in official goverment communication, but constitutionally they are King. CRwikiCA talk 13:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John: What is there that says that unambiguity was the reasoning behind the current rule? Niels: Surely if we were most concerned with rendering titles as a translation, that would an argument for King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands rather than the status quo? Since policy says that we should move all 4 to X, Y of the Z unless there is an exemption, what is anyone's argument for an exception? DBD 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DBD, my remark above was an attempt to try and find why the articles are currently named as they are. But looking into it deeper, it seems that the more logical explanation is just that article names were in line with policy at the time of creation (back in 2002): For kings, emperors, tsars, and so forth, use only the first name, the ordinal (for example I, II) and "of Country". When a ruler reigns over more than one country, list under his/her highest-ranking title. Please don't use cognomens in a title (for example "the Great").
As per John's comment above the current naming convention was introduced to reduce possible ambiguity, of which in this case there is none, as RandomCritic also points out below. In that case I would be in favour of keeping the articles under their current names, as this is in line with WP:TITLE - they are "recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and seem to be consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" (a quick google check "Beatrix of the Netherlands" vs. "Beatrix, queen of the Netherlands" seems to point this way). I feel that, as the articles have existed under their current names since 2002, they were aptly named from the start and should not be moved just because a guideline (not a policy!) was changed in the meantime (2010). If it aint broke don't fix it :-) Niels? en | nl 20:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Dutch version of this article is called nl:Willem-Alexander der Nederlanden and all of the other major European language articles have similar titles, except for those which just have "Willem-Alexander."RandomCritic (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have no greater objection to Willem-Alexander, King of the Netherlands than that it's longer than Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, but such a change should be applied to all the monarchs equally rather than just to Willem-Alexander. However, I don't think it's necessary. Although in the Middle Ages there were a few people who were not monarchs but who were identified by their country of origin (e.g. Marie de France, who is, however, not typically called "Mary of France"), the Netherlands is a country of much more recent origin, and its English name was settled on even more recently (in fact, early in the 20th century it was much more common to call the country "Holland" in English). So there is no notable figure who would be described as "X of the Netherlands" other than a monarch. The same would apply to other countries of relatively recent formation, e.g. "X of Germany" and "X of Italy" are unlikely to be ambiguous. And really, "John of England" was never truly ambiguous either -- there is no notable figure of that name but the king. Real ambiguity is only likely when the monarchy is named for a city or for a smaller region.RandomCritic (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[United Kingdom] Succession to the Crown Act 2013

[edit]

A very minor footnote in this article, but I believe the above act of the UK parliament restores King Willem-Alexander to the British line of succession, as it repeals the Act of Settlement's exclusion of living protestant heirs married to catholics? P M C 23:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but only when all such laws in all the Commonwealth realms receive royal assent. Should thousands of people that come before Willem-Alexander in the line die before that happens, he would still be skipped in favour of his eldest daughter - or his hypothetical fourth child if it happened to be a son, for that matter. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was also the idea of changing the British male preferred primogeniture succesion rule to simple primogeniture, but not to apply it retroactively to the places people currently have in the order of succession, but to apply it to all children born to those people after a certain date? -- fdewaele, 2 May 2013, 14:35 CET
I've found it. The relevant clause reads:
2 Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic
(1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.
(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to marriages occurring before the time of the coming into force of this section where the person concerned is alive at that time (as well as in relation to marriages occurring after that time).
So yes, the Dutch King will be back in British line of succession - somewhere around 1100-1200th! P M C 21:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Belief

[edit]

The article states that he is "Protestant." Can't we narrow it down a bit? The state religion of the Netherlands is the "Dutch Reformed Church." Is Willem not a member of that church?John Paul Parks (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's narrowed down alright - the "Protestant" in the infobox (which you probably refer to) links to Protestant Church in the Netherlands. Willem-Alexander was baptised as a member of the Dutch Reformed Church (see the Early life section), which subsequently merged into the aforementioned church. BTW, the Netherlands does not have a state religion. Niels? en | nl 22:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

[edit]

Does he have a royal motto? Or is this not used in the Netherlands? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC) He does, but it's the same as every preceding monarch of the Netherlands: 'Je Maintiendrai'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wie kan mij vertellen of willem alexander nog de titel heeft van : Vrijheer van ameland is deze van zijn moeder over gegaan op hem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.169.1 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the full title at Style_of_the_Dutch_sovereign: Bij de Gratie Gods, Koning der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg, Markies van Veere en Vlissingen, Graaf van Katzenellnbogen, Vianden, Diez, Spiegelberg, Buren, Leerdam en Culemborg, Burggraaf van Antwerpen, Baron van Breda, Diest, Beilstein, de stad Grave, het Land van Cuyk, IJsselstein, Cranendonck, Eindhoven, Liesveld, Herstal, Waasten, Arlay en Nozeroy, Erf- en Vrijheer van Ameland, Heer van Borculo, Bredevoort, Lichtenvoorde, Het Loo, Geertruidenberg, Klundert, Zevenbergen, Hooge en Lage Zwaluwe, Naaldwijk, Polanen, Sint-Maartensdijk, Soest, Baarn, Ter Eem, Willemstad, Steenbergen, Montfort, St. Vith, Bütgenbach, Niervaart, Daasburg, Turnhout en Besançon

212.72.34.175 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FPC Investiture of Willem-Alexander

[edit]

You can now vote on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Investiture of Willem-Alexander. – Editør (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William IV of the Netherlands redirect

[edit]

Since Willem-Alexander ended up not using the William IV ordinal, would it make sense to have William IV of the Netherlands redirect to William IV, Prince of Orange rather than to here? It's not strictly correct, of course, but it seems much more likely that someone typing that into the search box would be looking for that William IV rather than Willem-Alexander, who virtually nobody associates with the name. --Jfruh (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfruh Yes. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be somewhat of a misnomer. William IV the Stadtholder wasn't a monarch of the Netherlands. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a misnomer to refer to Willem-Alexander as William IV, though. This is just a redirect, not an official article name -- the purpose is to redirect people to the article they're probably thinking of, not to be correct. For instance, Elizabeth II of England redirects to the current British monarch, even though the title "queen of England" no longer exists and hasn't for centuries. --Jfruh (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

car accident while driving drunk as student

[edit]

source: http://www.dichtbij.nl/groot-leiden/regionaal-nieuws/artikel/2614224/prins-willemalexander-rijdt-na-feestje-leidse-sloot-in.aspx

W.A. drove his Ford Sierra Cosworth with high speed into a canal near Leiden where he studied at the time, 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.192.16 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Descent from George III?

[edit]

In the section ‘Ancestry’ it is stated that King Willem-Alexander is a descendant of King George III of Great Britain. Now, can anyone provide the exact line of descent, please? Because I can’t find any, and I’ve been researching all possible lines of descent from the Electress Sophia of Hanover (George I’s mother) to Queen Beatrix for some time. So I think this supposed descent is spurious. (He is descended from George II, as he’s a descendant of a sister of George III, granddaughter of George II, as well as of a daughter of George II.) Mithrennaith (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out you're exactly right. The descent from Princess Augusta of Great Britain is the one that matters for the succession. But she's a sister of George III and not his daughter. Since I put this text in some articles I will correct this and Thank you for finding this out!Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Willem-Alexander 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) 10:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Willem-Alexander 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) 02:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Willem-Alexander 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) 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (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) 10:41, 19 June 2020 (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) 11:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Willem IV" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Willem IV has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30 § Willem IV until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Current head of state of Netherlands" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Current head of state of Netherlands has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30 § Current head of state of Netherlands until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Willem IX Alexander, Prince of Orange" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Willem IX Alexander, Prince of Orange has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30 § Willem IX Alexander, Prince of Orange until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest

[edit]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox image?

[edit]
Proposed image
Proposed second image

I've noticed that there's been a trend in which outdated official portraits have been replaced on infoboxes with more recent pictures, especially if there's a difference in appearance from that time frame. Given how the current image of the king is 11 years outdated, perhaps it's time to consider updating the infobox picture. As of late, his appearance is a bit different than he is depicted on the infobox. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Willem-Alexander_of_the_Netherlands&oldid=1252192785"