Talk:William III of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

See also Talk:William of Orange

Persecution

hello Put more about what he has to do with the persecutions

Puritans were not the ancestors to modern day Presbyterians. Puritans were a Calvinist movement in England separate from Presbyterianism, which was Scottish Calvinism promoted by John Knox.

"Puritans" and "Independents" encompassed a wide variety of theological positions. It is not really accurate to compare them to modern denominations. Depending upon the sect (and there were many) preferred church government could be presbyterian, congregationalist, or anarchic. The term "Puritan" is a rather nebulous term in its own right. It referred originally to Calvinist members of the Church of England but eventually came to cover many (if not all) dissenting varieties of English Protestantism. A more accurate dichotomy would probably be between "presbyterians" and "Independents." During and after the English Civil War, the former group favored the retention of an English national church, but using presbyterian government and largely Calvinist theology. Independents favored a more decentralized congregational approach, with toleration for all Protestant sects.

Death rumour

I've heard the story that William fell from his horse and died after it stumbled in a mole's burrow, and that "the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat" was thereafter often toasted in Scotland. Is there any truth to this? —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)MARCUS MILLER

Yes, well, toasted by Jacobites anyway. -- Arwel 14:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sectarianism

What nothing on his modern influence on sectarianism, and how this man is a hero to every fascist nutter in Northern Ireland and South West Scotland?

Indeed. And it's a featured article as well. I'll have to keep an eye on the featured article nominations in future if this slipped through. I would have thought this article would have been mired in controversy and have a long talk page, but as you say there's nothing in the article to connect him with modern Irish matters. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet,you try to stoke controversy by using the term "fascist nutter".

When you use the term "fascist" and Northern Ireland in the same sentence,remember which religion Hitler,Mussolini and Franco were Compostcompactor (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny how William III is called a fascist when his coming to the throne of England actually brought about more democracy (oppossed by fascism). The only reason he fought the Irish was because they flocked to James IIs banner. Also i seriously doubt that you actually know what fascism means, that or you have read a really warped history book.Willski72 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dressing up in military uniforms with banners and marching around molesting minorities, yep that sounds pretty much like Fascism by any other name. Not to mention the "salute" some of these people use, which is Nazi in origin.

I take it these 'nazi' salutes are the ABOD salutes which are symbolic of the Siege of Derry, please try to keep this discussion on an adult level and we'll get the facts correct.

Of course the Fascists forget that William was bisexual and was allied to the Pope.

This article should contain much more about the Orange Order. Strange how it didn't before. And what about Rangers FC? A lot of their songs mention him, but this never gets any look in, because it's written from a mainly English perspective.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So, propose a properly sourced addition. Of course the Jacobites were closer to a fascist dictatorship, what with Jim VI inventing the divine right of kings and all, but no-one's perfect. . dave souza, talk 10:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the contemporary Orange Order, which has all the hallmarks of quasi-fascism, right down to political uniforms. Of course, commentators in England within their little bubble of "Britishness" won't truly be aware of this ugly aspect.

Besides which Wikipedia should steer clear of stupid phrases like "Glorious Revolution" (in fact it was not a revolution, and arguably not glorious either).-MacRusgail (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all Fascism was Italian and Catholic-inspired, the Orange Order (I assume they are the 'fascist nutters' to which you are referring) are very fundamentally opposed to such things. Secondly look up the history of the toraidhs and whigs, which seems more fascist to you? although of course fascism per se would not be invented for a few centuries.

Secondly uniforms are not the sole property of fascism, surely as a republican you are familiar with the communist and socialist love of uniforms? besides republican flute bands wear uniforms as well, or is that different somehow?

Glorious Revolution was a contemporary term applied to the battle, it is said history is written by the winners but don't let that stop you trying to rewrite it to suit your own propaganda needs. Hachimanchu (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to the Italian Fascist movement specifically. However, as you well know, the term is used to refer to a number of militaristic far right movements across the world. Some of these have come about by parallel evolution, others by direct influence, e.g. Brit HaBirionim. The KKK, for example, has similarities with Fascist movements elsewhere, but it owes nothing to the Italian movement, and in fact predates it.

"Secondly uniforms are not the sole property of fascism, surely as a republican you are familiar with the communist and socialist love of uniforms?" - Yes, of course I am. The Orange Order is not Communist, but Far Right, and obviously so... it picks on immigrants, and is inspired by a mythic version of history revolving mostly round "King Billy" as they call him.

"Glorious Revolution was a contemporary term applied to the battle, it is said history is written by the winners but don't let that stop you trying to rewrite it to suit your own propaganda needs." - It is a loaded term, used by one side, and so should avoid it. I suppose it is alright for historical figures to "rewrite history to suit their own propaganda needs", but not for contemporary balance. If we used that argument, we'd still use phrases "Red Indians" and "Final Solution" as neutral terms.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the basis of Irish nationalist propaganda is that the Brits, or Ulster Scots if you prefer, are themselves the immigrants, and it is common to hear or read the slogan 'Brits out now'. The Orange Order is not far right, in fact many members support the PUP who are left wing. Much of the ideology of the OO is charity, helping the poor etc which is fundamentally left wing, although it also predates modern concepts of left and right. Besides the place to discuss such things is on the OO page itself. MacRuisgail I take your point, but these terms can still be referenced and given appropriate historical context. Hachimanchu (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Good information on the sectarian side of the followers of Orangeism, good and bad. The words fascist and fascism need to be taken lightly though as sectarianism is prevelant amongst the opposition of anything Orange. Just a point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.182.179 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Prince of Orange

Johan Willem Friso did not follow William III as Prince of Orange; he did use the title but he was no longer the Prince of Orange. from the Prince of Orange:

Because William III died childless, the principality was inherited by Frederic of Prussia, who ceded it to France in 1713. In this way the title lost its feudal and secular privileges. The title remained in the Prussian family until 1918, and was also given to Louis de Mailly, whose family still holds the title today.

and from Johan Willem Friso of Orange-Nassau

After the death of William III of Orange the direct line of the House of Orange was extinct and Johan Willem Friso claimed the succession as stadtholder in all provinces. This was denied to him by the republican faction in the Netherlands. His son, however, later became William IV of Orange stadtholder of all seven provinces. Because William III was related in the female line to the Prussian king, the latter also claimed part of the inheritance (for example Lingen).

I changed the succession box accordingly and moved it to the Stadtholder's succession box. I think this way it's more clear.

By the way I have put the succession box for the whole Orange-Nassau line (from Henry to William III). --145.94.41.95 14:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it again - my understanding is that Johan Willem Friso and Frederick of Prussia disputed the right to the title of Prince of Orange. It was irrelevant, because the territory was occupied by France for the whole of the Spanish Succession war. john k 14:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah! we meet again, what did you think about my improvements --145.94.41.95 15:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Title Prince of Orange is still used by William's ancestors even if they are not known by that title to the public....... William III did have a child but not by Mary rather it was by his misstress Elizabeth Villiers however the illegitemite child..... William IV... was forced into hiding by John William Friso.... however there are still descendants of William IV alive today who still have claims to the title Prince of OrangeWinn3317 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

House

What house is William III, House of Stuart or House of Orange ? Astrotrain 11:37, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that he is a member of both Houses. A member of the House of Orange by birth and member of the House of Stuart by marriage. User:Dimadick

A man does not aquire the house of his wife, William III is last of the House of Orange-Nassau --145.94.41.95 16:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And women do not aquire the house of their husbands. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He represented that house in his reign of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland though. User:Dimadick

He was a member of both houses. His mother, was a Stewart, his father an Orange.

The monarchy's website counts him as a Stuart/Stewart. 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.236 (talk) He was NOT a member of the house of Stuart. He was a member of a cadet branch (nassau-orange) of the german house of nassau. He used the arms of nassau both as before and after he became king; and never in any form used the name 'stuart'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He is often put in the house of Stuart, as shown at the official website for example. DrKiernan (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Granted, but nonetheless he was officially of the House of Nassau. I doubt very much William himself would have considered himself as belong to anything other than the House of Nassau-Orange, particularly given that House's status in the Netherlands. He's often lumped in with the Stuarts, but this is more for convenience's sake as he is the one Nassau monarch sticking out amongst six Stuart ones; it's kind of like how Lady Jane Grey and Stephen are often lumped in with the Tudors and the House of Normandy, even though; really, they were respectively of the Houses of Grey and the House of Blois.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

William's Childhood

There is NOTHING on William's childhood--which was interesting in its own right-- in this article. I am willing to add it in myself, but it will be a while since I've got a few other things to worry about at the moment. But his childhood really should be included in this article.*Kat* 09:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

redirect from William of Orange

In my opinion, the assumption that this guy is the best known Wlliam of Orange, is erroneous. In actual fact, the first William of Orange I ever faced in history books was William I. Not this guy. Now, I understand that some people think that the annual thing somewhere there in Belfast has most impact. I have however rarely followed that, being fed up with those recurring fightings and posings, and therefore I have not given very much attention to its details. The part played by W III was a detail, actually. The main news annually is the marching. Whereas William I is directly important, him founding the dynasty. Therefore, I would much appreciate that the disambiguation page be under William of Orange, and this guy's overinflated importance deflated somewhat. 62.78.105.43 21:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an English language encyclopaedia not the Dutch one where the link priority might well be different. William III of England is by far the best known "William of Orange" in the English speaking world. Not only because he is involved in Irish history and is mentioned in the news every year during the marching season (a mural,CNN: The marching season: A question of rights and wrongs), which puts him in the news every year, but because of his part in the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which is not only part of the British history syllabus, but is also frequently taught in history classes in the USA to help explain the roots of the U.S. revolution. For example try a Google seach on ["William of Orange" site:bbc.co.uk]. It returns 744 English pages from bbc.co.uk for "William of Orange". I would be interested to know if any of the pages mention the person you are talking about. BTW is it William I of Orange or William I of the Netherlands? Not only is William III of England the most common usage in English outside Wkipeda, but the majority of en.wikipedia links to William of Orange are about topics relating to this man. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then the majority of links are wrong :-). He is William III of Orange. The very first William of Orange was a Frankisk (or some claim Muslim.) ruler of a principality in Southern France in the 7th or 8th century (but he doesn't count in the I II III). After a lot of dynastic upheavals the name and land came in the possesion of the son of a smalltime German nobleman (16th century) and he became William I of Orange (the revolutionary). William I of the Netherlands is the first king of the Netherlands (19th century). He was a great great great nephew or something (not in dircet line descendant) of William I. So William III is the son of William II of Orange who was the grandson of William I. Hope this clarifies somethings. Chardon

William the Silent is, at least, of similar fame to this William of Orange. I think William of Orange ought to be a disambiguation page. William I of the Netherlands, btw, was previously William VI of Orange. At any rate, I think all of the Williams of Orange (I-VII, really) ought to be listed at William of Orange to disambiguate. We can fix links that are referring to someone specific. john k 19:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John, whatever we have at William of Orange, it should not be an article, but rather, a redirect. Why? To make it easier to find incorrect links (since that name is ambiguous). The argument is laid out in full at User:Jnc/Disambiguation, but in brief: if William of Orange is a redirect, and all the articles (including the dismabiguation) have other names, then a simple look at Special:Whatlinkshere/William of Orange allows one to quickly find all articles that have linked (ambiguosly, and incorrectly) to "William of Orange", and one can quickly fix them all to point to the correct place. That way, when one comes back 6 months later to do it again, one can be certain that all the links to "William of Orange" are new links, which have been incorrectly set to point there. Noel (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In which English speaking country is William the Silent as well known as King Bill? The redirect should stay where it is for the reasons I have stated above. Which in summary is common usage should be the guide. Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss this at Talk:William of Orange. But I would say that this person is the one generally referred to in English (this is, after all, the English Wikipedia) when speaking of "William of Orange". But I think the suggestion of a disambig has some merit, but I need to think about it some more. Noel (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether William the Silent is as well known as William III. Obviously, he is not. The question is whether the name "William of Orange" is sufficiently unambiguous that it should be a redirect. I think that William the Silent is sufficiently well known as "William of Orange" as to make a disambiguation page necessary. I wasn't aware that absolute equality was required. john k 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I did say I saw the argument for having it redir to the disambig (even though I needed to think about it)! The question, to me, is whether enough people come looking for one of the other "William of Orange"s to make it worth making all those people looking for this WoO go through a disambig page as their first stop (a point made to me recently by User:Niteowlneils here.) To put it more concretely, given that we have a link to William of Orange (disambiguation) at the top of this page, would we rather have:

1. N users take an extra hop through "William of Orange (disambiguation)" when they type in "William of Orange", looking for William III, versus
2. M users having to take an extra hop through "William III" when they type in "William of Orange", looking for one of the others?

Alas, while I don't have hard data on the ratio N:M, I think you can pretty much bet than N >> M. Noel (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that in a very, very tiresome discussion Philip Baird Shearer is trying to have this discussion spread to as many pages as he can, and propose as many silly alternatives as he can, except the ones proposed by others, which he has even been trying to suppress by long-range edit war. - I try to have the discussion at Talk:William of Orange, that's also where the vote is (although that vote is a bit "cumbersome"). --Francis Schonken 18:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record:

• I have not contributed to the this discussion on this page since the 7th of July. At which time the page William of Orange was directed here.
• when I realised on the 19th of August that Chardon had changed the redirect on the 19th July without mentioning here. (I was not watching that redirect page) I changed it back to what it had been up until the 19th July.
• As Chardon had commented when he changed the page on that talk page Talk:William of Orange, When I changed it back I commented on that page. A discourse between him and I started on that page.
• user:217.140.193.123 commented on the 22 August 2005 "The dispute present at Talk:William of Orange has gone too long now. Time to see how much support each of these contentions receive." and put in a request WP:RM. So I did not initiate a vote on this issue and did not think one was necessary so soon, as with only two of us debating it for only 4 days, I felt that we still had not finished talking it through.
• I moved the page to discuss the WP:RM request from Talk:William of Orange (disambiguation) onto Talk:William of Orange precisely so that the conversation was not spread over yet another page.

So now that I have explained the sequence of events I hope you appreciate that I am not "trying to have this discussion spread to as many pages as [I]can" quite the opposite. Further no one has yet come up with any evidence what so ever, that in English when the term "William of Orange" is used without qualification, that the person being referred to is not William III in the vast majority of cases. I think that the convesation should continue on Talk:William of Orange, so I will say no more in this section Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Important reforms

In 1964 William established the Bank of England.

Umm, is "1964" here a typo for "1694"? Bank of England does agree that it was founded in 1694, but says nothing of William's role, if any. However, back then, I imagine the King would most likely have had a role in such an action, even if he wasn't the originator. Noel (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

William Henry

William III (pax britannica) is rairly if ever known as William Henry (ie "William Henry, Prince Of Orange", as a translation from the Dutch "Willem Hendrik, Prins Van Oranje"). The name "William Henry" if applied to an English king is usually applied to William IV of England before he became king as he was given the title of "William Henry, Duke of Clarence" by his father (King George III).

Inside wikipedia "William III" could also be known as "William III, Prince of Orange" like his father William II, Prince of Orange and William I, Prince of Orange. So if we are to use any other title in the introduction it should be "William III, Prince of Orange" or "William III, Prince of Orange-Nassau", to be consistent with the other "William Prince of Orange named as listed in William of Orange (disambiguation) Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Death of William

"In 1702, William — who did not remarry — died of complications (pneumonia) from injuries (a broken collarbone), resulting from a fall off his sorrel mare." Is it just me or is this a needless complicated sentence? Why is necessary to desrcibe the horse in such detail? Why the not-remarry remark? I propose "In 1702, William died of pneumonia from a broken collarbone, resulting from a fall off his horse". 194.109.236.119 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Robbert-Jan

That doesn't really make sense. You don't get pneumonia from a broken collarbone. Some sort of change is in order, but not that particular change. john k 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

How about: In 1702, William died of pneumonia and from complications from injuries received (a broken collarbone) after falling from his horse. If needed the information about him remarrying (or not) can be added in as well. Prsgoddess187 12:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

John you are right, my suggestion doesn't make sense :) . Prsgoddess, your sentence suggests that the pneumonia is not a complicaton from the injury, which the orignal indicates it was. Maybe 'In 1702, William broke his collarbone from falling off his horse. This injury resulted in pneumonia, of which he died.' or something like that. Or another suggestion: "In 1702, William died of pneumonia, a complication from a broken collarbone, resulting from a fall off his horse". Whatever it will be, don't include the "sorrel mare" bit ;)

"Glorious Revolution" vs. "coup d'état"

What exactly is the point of the following sentence:

"Though the invasion and subsequent overthrow of James II is commonly known as the "Glorious Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

To clarify the issue, how would people view the following sentences:

"Though the rising against and subesquent overthrow of Alexander Kerensky is commonly known as the "Bolshevik Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

"Though the rising against and subesquent overthrow of Louis XVI is commonly known as the "French Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

Generally, successful political revolutions involve a seizure of governmental power (a coup d'état). If the revolutionaries do not seize power they will not have much of a revolution. The difference between a mere a coup d'état and a revolution does not concern the seizure of power but the changes to the political system. A coup d'état alone is merely the replacement of one ruler or set of rulers with another. The French Revolution involved much more than the removal and execution of Louis XVI. The Bolshevik Revolution involved much more than Lenin replacing Kerensky as leader of Russia.

The replacement of James II by William & Mary was only part of the Glorious Revolution. The importance of the Glorious Revolution was that it established that the King of England (and by extension Scotland & Ireland) could not rule against the wishes of his people. In order to gain the throne, William & Mary accepted numerous conditions imposed by Parliament. The Stuart kings (James I & VI, Charles I, Charles II, and James II & VII) claimed a Divine Right to rule that trumped the rights of the people. They were king because God gave them the throne. William & Mary, acquired the throne because Parliament gave it to them. They and every subsequent monarch down to and including Elizabeth II reigned because of an Act of Parliament. William & Mary and their successors accepted that their power was limited by law. Further they accepted that they had to share power with Parliament. Each of the preceding Stuart kings made attempts to rule without Parliament. After the Glorious Revolution, British monarchs abandoned any idea of ruling without the legislature. Prior to the Glorious Revolution, there were long periods without a meeting of Parliament. In contrast, Parliament has met annually, with frequent elections, since the Glorious Revolution. This was a massive change in the fundamental principles underlying royal authority in the British Isles.

--ThomasK107 09:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps coup d'etat is not the right word (foreign occupation would be better) but it certainly describes what happened a lot better then the Dutch propaganda you're quoting. The replacement of James II by a ruler more friendly to Dutch interests had long been the goal of William III foreign policy. James II had supported Louis XIV wars against the Dutch Republic and weakening France by removing one of its allies would benefit Holland. After the conquest William had to bargain with the English because he didn't have enough troops to occupy England and fight the French but with some psychological warfare and propaganda he managed to extract get a good deal of what he wanted from the English (removing one of Frances key allies, English troops (though not completely trustworthy. there are some famous examples of English treachery from this period) etcetc), including being made a king. Chardon 20:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't quoting anyone, hence the absence of quotation marks. :) (I know what you meant. I am feeling pedantic today.) I was summarizing the standard English and American understanding of the Glorious Revolution. The importance of the Glorious Revolution in history is that it changed the balance of power between king and parliament. Since William III and his successors accepted the change instead of fighting for their divine rights like the Stuart kings, the stage was set for the development of genuine parliamentary democracy where real control of affairs passed from the king to ministers enjoying parliamentary support. That took over a century. The reasons why William III wanted to be king and the English/Scottish wanted to be rid of James II are less important that the radical transformation in the political system that followed from the deals the various parties made to secure their objectives. When earlier kings made deals they did not like, they immediately set about undermining them. With the Glorious Revolution, the deals that made William king stuck. Parliament could thus make deals with other kings that slowly changed the unwritten constitution. To say that the Glorious Revolution was a coup d'état or a foreign invasion is to miss its real importance. William III was not the first English king to invade England with local support and take the throne. Henry IV, Edward IV, Henry VII all did the same thing. In addition, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Edward III, and Richard III, all took the throne in violation of the rights of another with an equal or better claim to rule. The difference between those cases and William III/Glorious Revolution is that the earlier "illegal" transfers of the crown resulted merely in a change in the occupant of the throne. Henry VII ruled England in much the same way as Richard III. The balance of power with Parliament and the fundamental structure of government remained the same. With William III, a fundamental shift began that resulted in the Parliament replacing the crown as the most power institution of government. I do not think there is any question that William III wanted to have a friendly government ruling England. That is the reason for his marriage to Charles II's neice. By 1688, he certainly had reason to expect that the crown would eventually pass to his wife in view of James II's inability to father a legitimate male heir. The healthy birth of the Old Pretender must have been a shock and a disappointment. The Glorious Revolution is really not about William's reasons for taking the throne or Parliament's reasons for accepting him. The important point is the long-term change in English (and ultimately British) politics.--ThomasK107 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

William III intention was not to change the English constitution/structure of government. He wanted to rule much in the same way as his predeccesors did. The structure of government did change but that was more by accident then by design. So seen from the perspective of William his action was a coup d´etat/occupation and the his justifications propaganda (or glorious lies as an American neocon would put it) but I agree with you, seen from the perspective of English constitutionl history, that what happened after the invasion was much bigger then a mere coup d´etat. However since this is an article about William III I believe the sentence you have problems with is appropriate. Chardon 10:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to time just now to go into depth on this subject, but I don't think it could be considered a coup d'état. Incidentally, it is not listed on the coup page, whereas Pride's Purge. That page defines it an overthrow of government through constitutional means. What made the Revolution in this instance distinct that it was by constitutional means, that it was approved by Parliament. The sentence seems to me quite unfair a little like Jacobite propaganda. William Quill 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the below proposed modification and addendum to the offending sentence. I think it captures aspects of what was said above:

... it was a coup d'état, with one faction successfully deposing James II and supporting William of Orange. Of fundamental constitutional consequence was that the crown was offered under terms that ended claims of divine right, circumscribed the powers of the monarch, and firmly established a system of parliamentary constitutional monarchy that survives uninterrupted to the present.

Yellowdesk 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have dropped-off three months ago, but the issue should be decided. The passage disputes the validity of the term "Glorious Revolution", and is therefore POV. As such, I am deleting it.

For the record, the text quoted at the top of this section has gotten worse by nearly doubling in length. It now reads as follows:

Though the invasion and subsequent overthrow of James II is commonly known as the "Glorious Revolution", it was more nearly a coup d'état, with one faction ultimately successful in deposing James II and installing William of Orange in power.

As the GR was more or less a bloodless overthrow, it does not fit the strictest definition of a coup: a violent overthrow. Regardless of whether a coup is violent or not, what difference does it make? How does its being a coup change why it is called the "Glorious Revolution"?

Yes, obviously, one ruler unwillingly went out because another wanted to come in. The same was true of the American and French revolutions. The language of the quoted text sets "Glorious Revolution" and coup d'etat as mutually exclusive. I see no reason why that would be true.

Chardon said that because from William's point of view it was a mere takeover, the sentence as originally put is appropriate. That would make sense if the sentence said something like, "It was never William's intention to bring about the Glorious Revolution, for him it was merely a coup d'etat, albeit in a kingdom asking for a coup." Rather, the sentence states it as fact that what happened was not really a Glorious Revolution. That is POV, not fact, and therefore should be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The gin connection?

An Amsterdam bartender told me that William III brought the first bottle of gin to Britain. Even if this is a folk-legend, it may merit mention. Wish I had time to check how pervasive the story is... Ellsworth 02:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he introduced the first bottle, but gin certainly became popular under his and Mary's reign. William banned imports of French brandy (which was quite expensive in England at the time) as a result of the tensions between France and the Netherlands and Englishmen soon began to produce the spirit, which had been a favourite tipple amongst the Dutch for quite some time (and William was quite a fan of it - so probably did introduce it to Britain). It was so cheap by the end of the 17thC (compared to other spirits), that it got one of the names it's usually referred to today, "Mother's Ruin", as it fuelled poverty and prostitution and was apparently a cause of many abortions. Craigy (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Gin bears a close similarity to Dutch Genever; it's very likely that one brought about the other. 193.71.38.142 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Elite Penguin Knights

Though my knowledge of the subject is a little sketchy, this doesn't ring a bell from history class. Strangely it doesn't show up in edits (final paragraph of 'Glorious Revolution' sub-heading), so I can't delete it. Perhaps someone more technically savvy than myself can sort this out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.71.38.142 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Fort Amsterdam named for William during (separate) Dutch and English reigns?

I was wondering if you could take a list of names for Fort Amsterdam (which was the first fort and administrative center of New York City until after the American Revolution)? The Dutch recaptured the fort in 1673 and named it Fort Willem Hendrick (and renamed the city to New Orange). The British recaptured it again in 1674 and named it back to original British name Fort James and then Fort William. From my reading of history the Dutch Willem Hendick and the later William would be in fact the same William III of England. It's an interesting quirk if that's the case. I can't find any references on where the Fort Willem name came from. Many thanks. Americasroof 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems plausible, but then again, a lot of Dutch stadholders were called William, without real sources there is no way of being sure.Rex 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, I found my references and he is the same guy. If I read this article a little more carefully I would have seen that Willem Hendrick was already mentioned! Thanks again! Americasroof 13:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A minor detail: the British did not recapture but regain the fort in 1674.--MWAK 18:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

length of article

article is getting too long. Feel free to delete details in it.Johncmullen1960 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

name "William III of England" is incorrect

The first sentence says: "William III of England (The Hague, 14 November 1650 – Kensington Palace, 8 March 1702; also known as William II of Scotland and William III of Orange". To my knowledge this is incorrect, it should be "King William III of England", "William III, King of England", or only "(King) William III". William III of England (without 'King' in the name) is a Wikipedia definition, not the name he was known as. Demophon 10:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

The encyclopaedia Britannica describes him as "William III" only and MSN Encarta as "William III (of England)", not William III of England, since this is incorrect. Demophon 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is wrong, shouldn't the name of the article be changed? Wouldn't that be more annoyingly wrong than a sentence in the content? I recommend citing the source of the name to rule out any dispute. As stated above, "To my knowledge this is incorrect", does not really indicate that it is an absolute factual error. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"William III of England" is correct as it is the established way on Wikipedia to describe English kings, e.g. James I of England, James II of England, etc. "William III" on its own is incorrect.--Johnbull 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Regal Number

Can someone clear something up for me? Was William both William III, Prince of Orange and William III, King of England independently of one another? What I mean is, is the fact that he was both "III" of Orange and England just coincidence, or was it set up that way somehow? Thanks. 75.75.110.235 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

William III was the third king in the line of English kings with the name William. Also he was the third William in the Dutch family with the name Willem, or in English, William. So the fact that in both the lineage of English kings, as well the Dutch family Orange-Nassau, he was named William III is pure coincidence. In fact, in Scotland he was named King William II not III. Demophon 06:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

what did he do as king —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.98.68 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Dutch sources say he left early November, had to return twice to Hellevoetsluis. Backed by a strong easterly, which was soon dubbed the 'Protestant wind', he landed on November 15th. Taksen (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Offices

What does "William II held, in official feudal order, the office of stadtholder of Guelders, Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, and Overijssel." Specifically, what does "official feudal order" mean? -Rrius (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather obscure. And the sentence is ambiguous. Were there several offices or just one over several provinces?--Gazzster (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Guelders was a former duchy, and so first in the feudal order. Holland was second in that order, but the main player. Taksen (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "official feudal order" is terribly meaningful. Perhaps "William held the office of stadtholder of, in descending order of importance, Guelders..." would be better. The best option may be to simply delete "in official feudal order" because it doesn't add anything substantial to the article. -Rrius (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

The succession box title English royalty, should be changed to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to these two edits,[1][2] I agree that the succession box for the French throne should be removed. Even though William fought long and hard against France for his entire life, he never once made war or indeed any effort to defend the claim which was always purely titular. It is covered with due weight in the "Titles and styles" section as "(The claim to France was only nominal, and had been asserted by every English King since Edward III, regardless of the amount of French territory actually controlled, see English claims to the French throne)." Placing it in the succession boxes gives it the same weight as his successful claims to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones, which is undue. The title gets no coverage in reliable sources, except when discussed as part of the royal style or to explain why the French arms are on the royal coat of arms. So, if we follow the sources, it is appropriate to discuss it, and only discuss it, in the "Titles, styles and arms" section. DrKiernan (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. It doesn't deserve the same weight as kingdoms he actually ruled. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro

This states that he became King of Ireland in Feb 1689. This is not true in any real sense, since in reality James remained King of Ireland until 1690/91, & was so recognized by the Irish Parliament. The English Parliament proclaimed him King of Ireland, but then it also proclaimed him King of France. 14:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

No mention of the fact he was a suspected homosexual ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.45.71 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole section on it.[3] DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true - there is. Although the evidence is inconclusive. The text was more extensive but it was agreed to trim back a little. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just received the Van der Zee book in the mail, so I'll add their take on the rumours soon. I want to finish citing the rest of the article to Troost and Van der Kiste first, though, since they're library books and have to go back soon. Coemgenus 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome this if it helps shed more light. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I read that section and was a bit perturbed that it is titled Homosexual Accusations. This doesn't sound right since it implies there is something wrong with being gay (you usually aren't accused of nice things). Put it another way, if he had been fond of racing pigeons but kept it quiet, we wouldn't title a section Pigeon-fancier Accusations. I was going to put Suspicions but that isn't much better. Anyone have a better idea? --Oscar Bravo (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that section title, but it does make sense. In the 1690s, when the accusations were made, it was a crime, and most of English society did not approve of it. "Accusations" might be inappropriate for a modern political figure's article, but for a man of the 17th century, it is quite accurate. Coemgenus 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was me who originally added that heading. It seemed to me that a lot of the evidence had emerged from those one would term as William's enemies. That does not mean that the suggestions were false (or indeed true); but they were made with the intention of bringing notice to a perceived defect in Williams' character. We would not, of course, view the issue in the same way now. But good question. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that this article is now in the "LBGT royalty" category. Isn't this a bit anachronistic? If all the rumours of King Billy's behaviour be true, then he liked to have sex with men and women alike. But did anyone in the 17th or 18th century call himself gay or bisexual? In addition, William never acknowledged those rumours, and his friends denied them.

I think he probably did have some sexual relationships with men, but calling him gay or bisexual seems like calling him a Peelite or a Thatcherite -- it's applying a modern term to a centuries-old person who never comtemplated our modern definitions or world-view. Coemgenus 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point. Neither he, nor contemporaries would have used the label LGBT - it simply wouldn't have been understood. This is absolutely right. However, for the purposes of this wikipedia article I still think it offers the best approximation. We today would understand or identify William's behaviour as an approximation for LGBT. That's not to say that he was (or was not) attracted to the same sex (the evidence is interesting, raises questions but is ultimately inconclusive); but that the article contains enough information to be of relevance to the LGBT category. This is consistent with other articles under the category - Edward II, James I etc - all of these individuals would not have labelled themselves LGBT; but it is we who label them in order to usefully categorise them for discussion. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The category is defined as "shown to be gay, bisexual or transgender". That does not apply in this case as he has not been shown to be gay or bisexual. As you yourself say, it is "inconclusive". Consequently, the category should go. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The description is actually "shown by a verifiable, reliable source to be LGBT". Presumably in this instance the sources are Troost and van der Zee, amongst others? Isn't the point of categorisation, however, ultimately to make it easier for wikipedia readers to look up articles of interest? Someone wanting to see which royals were likely to have been LGBT could then access the list and look at what the text had to say. I would argue that there is more than enough under this article to warrant such analysis - in an attempt to make wikipedia easier to use for readers. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly reasonable to call him homosexual or bisexual if he had sexual relations with persons of his own sex. The whole controversy about these words is an artificial problem manufactured by the followers of social constructionism in order to advance their doctrine that homosexuality, and sexual preference in general, is an invention of Western industrial capitalist societies.

If we do not refer to William's behaviour as homosexual, or even bisexual, then what should we call it – heterosexual? According to the staunchest defenders of the social construction doctrine we should even refrain from using such words as "sexual" in the context of historical figures as sexuality as such is an invention of late modernity. And while we're at it, let's problematicize Williams maleness as well; after all, the gender dichotomy peculiar to our time was not in effect in the 17th century.

That the words homosexual or bisexual were not used at the time of King William III is a statement of trivial fact which does not prove that the passions associated with those words also did not exist, unless you want to succumb to some form of naïve linguistic determinism which dictates that the referent of a word cannot exist in any shape or form until the word itself is coined (cf. gravitation did not exist until Newton).Ilmateur (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved your comments to make them chronological, since we seemed to have settled this issue a year ago, during the featured article review. Coemgenus 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death

We seem to be comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended) here. At his birth, the Netherlands was using the Julian calendar. At his death, England was also still using the Julian calendar. Yet in the lead para we show his Gregorian birth date, but his Julian death date, which make him appear to have lived 11 days less than he actually did. Surely, it would be preferable to have both dates in Julian, or both in Gregorian, with an explanatory note in either case. That is, either (Julian) 4 Nov 1650-8 March 1702, or (Gregorian) 14 Nov 1650-19 March 1702. Even better, something like:

• 14 November [O.S. 4 November] 1650 - 19 March [O.S. 8 March] 1702. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here: the province of Holland (unlike other Dutch provinces, like Friesland) already introduced the Gregorian calender in December, 1582 (December 15 became December 25, 1582 according to many sources I found; see e.g. Gregorian_calendar#Adoption_in_Europe. So the Gregorian birthdate is correct (as he was born in The Hague, Holland), though the conversion to Julian dates is defensible with the explanatory note.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Ereunetes. The note is helpful, but doesn’t go as far as it should, and is misleading in some respects.

• It talks of the Julian calendar being used “in the Netherlands”, when, as you’ve pointed out, that was true only for certain parts of the the Netherlands, although these did happen to include William’s birthplace in the province of Holland.
• It does not fully clarify whether his death date “8 March 1702” is a Julian or Gregorian date. It would be quite defensible for a reader to come to the conclusion that he lived for 51 years 114 days (14 Nov 1650 – 8 March 1702) when he in fact lived for 51 years 125 days (14 Nov 1650 – 19 March 1702).
• It talks of the 10-day gap between the calendars in 1650, but not about the 11-day gap in 1702.
• It talks of “the general adoption of the Gregorian calendar in the UK in 1753”. The year was 1752, not 1753; and it wasn’t “the UK”, which didn’t come into existence till 1801. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain at that time, and Ireland was still a separate kingdom.

To make this clearer, I’d like to expand the note as follows:

• During William's lifetime, two calendars were in use in Europe: the Julian or 'Old Style' in Britain and parts of Eastern Europe, and the Gregorian or 'New Style' elsewhere, including William’s birthplace in the province of Holland and some other parts of the Netherlands. At William's birth, Gregorian dates were ten days ahead of Julian dates: thus William was born on 14 November 1650 by the Gregorian calendar, but on 4 November 1650 by the Julian. Moreover, the English new year began on 25 March (the feast of the Incarnation) and not on 1 January (until the general adoption of the Gregorian calendar in Great Britain and Ireland in 1752). At William's death, Gregorian dates were now eleven days ahead of Julian dates. He died on 8 March 1702 by the Julian calendar still applying in Britain, but on 19 March 1702 by the Gregorian calendar. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing information?

Dear dr Kierman, the article on William III has almost no references to Amsterdam mayors, who played an important role in the financing William's journey to England, or artisans, who propagated William. I was hoping you or someone else would put them in the text or take notice. They are not loose, there is certainly some information on William (who by the way also called himself the king of France) and Mary. There is no paragraph in the lemma on William or Mary and the arts. Something I miss. Taksen (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Pasted from my talk page. DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on Taksen's concerns that the article lacks information on this aspect? DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

These links were removed by DrKiernan: Coenraad van Beuningen, Nicolaes Witsen, Romeyn de Hooghe and Daniel Marot. The article is on De Hooghe is not very elaborate, but there is more to tell about him. Simon Schama published a lot of drawings by De Hooghe in his book The Emberrassment of Richness. Also the physician Govert Bidloo is not mentioned. Taksen (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Insert? or new Article?

I have a list of just over 50 British Nobles and Gentry, who deserted James into Williams camp. Insert? or new Article?Stephen2nd (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely separate article. You should link to it in Glorious revolution, too. Coemgenus 01:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done: List of James II deserters to William of Orange, will link Article to James II and Glorious revolution asap. Thanks. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Stadtholder no "regnal title"

This is actually a criticism of the "pretty" new template that one finds in many articles about members of the House of Orange (and cadet branches) and that gives "stadtholder" of sundry provinces as a "regnal title." This is arguably an anachronism, at least before 1747 (and I would maintain after that year also). I don't deny that "Prince of Orange" (at least up to 1713) and "Count/Reichsfuerst of Nassau" were regnal titles. But stadtholder was an appointive office, even when it was made hereditary (though this seems a contradiction, but making it hereditary did not change the constitutional position). I don't want to refight the Orangist/Staatsgezinde wars, but absent proof that William III (or any of the other stadtholders for that matter) were ever made sovereign, I think it gives the wrong impression to convey this dignity on them, even if only in the form of a misbegotten template.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ereunetes is quite right. The best proof is that twice in history a number of Dutch provinces, amongst them Holland (arguably the most important province of the Dutch Republic), decided not to appoint a new stadtholder after the death of the previous one (First Stadtholderless Era: 1650-1672; Second Stadtholderless Era: 1702-1747). So "regnal title" is quite wrong for the stadtholder's office. Skuipers (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; William's title of Prince of Orange made him a sovereign over that city-state, but his title of Stadtholder did not make him a sovereign over the five province for which he held the title. Coemgenus 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad we seem to agree:-) But what about drawing the consequences? I hate to mess up other people's pretty boxes. What I did on the page for Willem Frederik of Nassau-Dietz was to bring the stadtholder box before the regnal-title box, directly under the personal-data box. That may work here, too. But it may raise a storm, because it might be interpreted as somehow putting stadtholder before king. So maybe an acceptable alternative would be to put the stadtholder box below all the regnal titles, but appropriately separated from the regnal title box. However, I don't know how to do that.

Aditionally, in all the boxes (also the British royalty box) William IV is given as the successor in the stadtholder office. In reality there was a 45-year hiatus, known as the Second Stadtholderless Period (someone still will have to write that article; it is long overdue). William's successor in his regnal titles on the Continent of course was either John William Friso, Prince of Orange, according to his Will, or Frederick I of Prussia (I just noted that the article on Friso has the story wrong; that cries out for an edit :-) according to Frederick Henry's Will. The dispute was settled in the 1730s by a partition treaty between the two rival houses, which in part gave the title Prince of Orange to both claimants. So, if we want to have the data right, this also should be reflected in the boxes.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can deal with the hiatus by using {{s-vac}}. – Ilse@ 02:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though it took me a very long time to figure out how to refrain from messing up the whole box. In any case, I managed to shift the stadtholders rows to the less-offending political-office box, which is historically more correct.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

William's role in the lynching of De Witt

I think a slightly more extensive discussion of William's role after the lynching of the De Witt brothers, however controversial, might be in order. I am not proposing to accuse him of complicity before the fact, but his shielding of the perpetrators, even rewarding people like Tichelaar (pension), Van Banchem (baljuw of The Hague), and Kievit (Pensionary of Rotterdam) raised eyebrows at the time and point to being an accessory after the fact. I mean, we should see the person, warts and all. It is a more important subject than his alleged homosexuality.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The topic of who had sex with whom certainly draws more than its share of editors, but William's involvement in De Witt's lynching is certainly more relevant to the course of history than whatever went on in a man's bedroom. If you have some information to add, by all means do so -- it's a wiki, after all. Coemgenus 12:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have added a paragraph, with citations, in what I hope is a non-sensational fashion.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

References

The sections Death, Style and arms, Ancestors, and In popular culture need additional references, because they currently fail WP:FACR #1c. – Ilse@ 14:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have entered a reference to the new article Second Stadtholderless Period which covers the same material more extensively, and contains all required citations. Maybe this article could also be referenced in the several boxes where erroneously William IV is mentioned as the successor of William III as stadtholder. There is a 45-year hiatus.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean wikilinks or other internal Wikipedia references, but references to reliable sources. Maybe you can also add the source references that were used for the Second Stadtholderless Period article? – Ilse@ 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added citations to the "Death" section. I am not enough of an expert on the Arms and Popular culture sections to add citations there. Ancestors is a box--Ereunetes (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work. – Ilse@ 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The sections Style and arms, Ancestors, and In popular culture still need attention. – Ilse@ 09:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heir apparent?

While cleaning up the historical mess in the title boxes I noticed another apparent howler: In the English royalty box William is apparently listed (unless I misunderstand completely) as "heir apparent" to his wife Mary between their accession to the throne as joint-rulers and her death in 1694. Surely, William was king of England the whole time between February 13, 1689 and his own death on March 8/19, 1702? Another, maybe interesting point for nitpickers: there seems to have been a real "interregnum" between James' "abdication" and William's and Mary's accession. Shouldn't that be reflected in the box? :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what whoever wrote that meant was that William would remain king if Mary died first (as he did) so he was, in a certain sense, his wife's heir. That said, the idea of a succession box for the next-in-line to an office is sort of silly, especially since William and Mary showed that the succession is not exactly written in stone. Coemgenus 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"King Billy"

It says they called him that in N Ireland and Scotland. Did they call him that because they liked him or was it meant to be a insult to him?Bolinda (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Primarily used by Protestants who still like him. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First two sentences

I think there are two problems with the first two sentences of the article: contrary to the WP:MOS the title of the article is not repeated (in bold) in the opening paragraph; and the name William III of Orange (a redirect!) doesn’t come out clearly. Therefore I replace the first two sentences with the following:

William III of England (14 November 1650 – 8 March 1702)) was a Prince of Orange by birth. From 1672 onwards, he reigned as Stadtholder William III of Orange over most provinces of the Dutch Republic. In addition, from 1689 onwards, he reigned as King William III over England and Ireland, and as King William II over Scotland.

Cheers, Iterator12n ^Talk 16:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stadtholders didn't "reign," though William III may be said to have "governed" the Republic as a kind of military and diplomatic supremo. Furthermore, he was "William III of Orange" from birth and not just from 1672 onwards; this has nothing to do with him being appointed stadtholder. I think the article explains the real situation, at least it did when I last read it. Why not square the lead section with the rest then?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. "reigned": agreed and changed. Re. William III of Orange from birth: agreed but I don't see how that would changed the sentence. He governed as Stadtholder William III of Orange only from 1672. (Of course, we should keep in the back of our minds that the III is a designation added later in history - I've never seen a contemporary document with the III. Pls enlighten me if on this point I'm wrong, particularly if contemporary British were using the III.) Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How about his Great Seal, which said GVLIELMVS III ET MARIA II DEI GRA[TIA] ANG[LIÆ] FRA[NCIÆ] ET HIB[ERNIÆ] REX ET REGINA FIDEI DEFENSATORES / AUREA FLORIGERIS SUCCRESCUNT POMA ROSETIS : SECURITAS BRITANNIÆ RESTITUTA". See Great Seal of the Realm? (I think the latter part is rather suggestive, by the way :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

cadet branch?

I don't quite know where to put this :-) At the end of the article we find another of those nice information boxes. I think it is s-hou or something. Though useful in general to summarize information, they sometimes inadvertently introduce misinformation. For instance, this box has the words "cadet branch" apparently hard wired, at least I don't see a way to edit this. So my real complaint is to the constructor of this template. In any case, calling the House of Orange-Nassau a cadet branch of the House of Nassau is incorrect for technical reasons. As the article on cadet branch explains, this technical term pertains to branches rooted in the younger sons in a feudal situation of primogeniture. These received appanages instead of equal shares of the inheritance as was the case in non-promogeniture areas, like the feudal Germany of which the county of Nassau was a part. The Ottonian and Walramian branches of the House of Nassau were therefore collateral branches, the one receiving Nassau-Weilburg, the other Nassau-Siegen and Nassau-Dillenburg. If William the Silent had not inherited the Principality of Orange from his cousin René of Châlon in 1544 (together with the Nassau-Dillenburg family's extensive holdings in the Netherlands) he probably would have shared equally with his younger brother John in the remaining Nassau-Dillenburg possessions (so if one of the two branches was the cadet one, it would have to be John's). As it was, Orange-Nassau became a collateral branch of Nassau-Dillenburg after the death of their father, William the Rich, and after the death of John, a collateral branch of the branches John's sons started in 1606 (like Nassau-Dietz). Interestingly, after Orange-Nassau died out in 1702, things became messy, as both claimants to the inheritance of William III of Orange inherited through the female line (two daughters of Frederick Henry). That didn't entitle them to start their own new collateral branches, if I understand the rule correctly :-) Eventually, the Nassau-Dietz claimant arrogated the name Orange-Nassau for his House, while the Hohenzollern claimant satisfied himself with the major part of the inheritance and the title of Prince of Orange as a courtesy title (as he had acquiesced to the annexation of the principality itself in 1713 in exchange for territorial concessions for Prussia). Nassau-Dietz (under the new name) was still a collateral branch of the other Nassau branches, however. Unfortunately, most of the articles (except for Count of Nassau) on the House of Nassau rather obfuscate this complicated history, especially as the transfer of the Orange-Nassau name to Nassau-Dietz is concerned. Though the Hohenzollern branch was the material winner in the dispute about the inheritance (being the politically stronger one at the time)one would be hard pressed to find even a mention of this fact in these wikipedia articles:-) Not that I am losing any sleep about this. But it pains me to see so much, let's say incomplete, information diseminated in wikipedia pages. And don't make me start about the information box at the top of the article :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New images

Although this article already has many images, I've uploaded a bunch of new high-resolution images of William III, shown below. I hope some of them may be useful. Dcoetzee 11:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Entry of William III in The Hague, 5 February 1691, by Carel Allard
• 
  By Cornelius Johnson, 1657
• 
  By Jan de Baen, circa 1668
• 
  In state robes, attributed to Thomas Murray
• 
  By William Wissing
• 
  Circa 1690
• 
  Etching, late 17th century
• 
  Line engraving, circa 1689-1702
• 
  Equestrian, circa 1690

An article about English history, which fails to give due note to Jacobitism

William of Orange is significant for his effect on the dispute over Jacobitism, a movement across Britain and Ireland resisting the imposition of parliamentary conditions on royal rights and questioning the legitimacy of the monarch. William summoning the Convention of the Estates which met on 14 March 1689 should be mentioned, as should John Graham, 1st Viscount of Dundee for his part in the brief Jacobite rising in Scotland, and the inception and course of the Williamite War in Ireland should be outlined more informatively. William's personal intervention and presence at the Battle of the Boyne is surely notable. Given that these were both over in 1690, they should appear before the Parliament and faction subsection in the Rule with Mary II section, and it should be noted that Jacobitism continued to simmer as something which would lead to further risings, particularly those in 1715 and 1745. This was a significant part of King Billy's legacy, but is not apparent from the article. . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence and a pic about his presence in Ireland during the Boyne. I'll add some more about Jacobitism when I have the sources in front of me. Coemgenus 19:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the article sequence still needs to be reconsidered to put the immediate reaction at the start of his joint reign: opponents throughout the British Isles held a radically different view of the relationship between God, State and Parliament.[4] The legitimacy of his rule was disputed by Tories in the Lords,[5] and nonjurors including bishops in England and Scotland, and many other clergymen and laymen, refused to sign allegiance. It's worth noting that the Convention of the Estates which William summoned was swayed by an utterly tactless letter from James before deciding for William, leading to Viscount Dundee starting the first military resistance, and in later episodes, as well as William's responsibilities in the Massacre of Glencoe, his part in the failure of the Darien scheme which led to reluctant union of the parliaments should get a brief mention.[6] [7] It's a subject reexamined by historians,[8] and I found Szechi, D. The Jacobites, Britain and Europe, 1688-1788. Manchester [Eng.] ; Manchester University Press : c1994. ISBN 0-7190-3774-3. very useful in giving the broader picture. Hope you find that useful, I'm reluctant to start making significant changes to a featured article, but think the constitutional implications need to be shown. . dave souza, talk 12:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This section already discusses Jacobite resistance to William's rule. I don't think we'd ought to add too much more to his biography. Don't the links to Jacobitism provide enough information for those who are curious? Coemgenus 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As it says in the lead, "His reign marked the beginning of the transition from the personal rule of the Stuarts to the more Parliament-centred rule of the House of Hanover." but the article fails to explore this issue. It gives the inaccurate impression of only trivial resistance, tucked away at the end of the section on his reign. In practice, there was a deep division on the rights of monarch and parliament, and he personally intervened in two aspects of defeating continued oppposition. The Darien Scheme is a distinct issue, which is notable in a UK context. There's no need to add a great deal to this page, but appropriate coverage is needed to overcome a misleading impression. . dave souza, talk 20:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, have reorganised the relevant section to clarify things a bit, removing duplication of discussion about the war in Ireland, and have also clarified the proclamation section. I've not tackled the issue of the legitimacy of his rule being disputed by Tories in the Lords,[9] which gives a less Whiggish history. Trust that helps, . . dave souza, talk 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC) With subsequent revisions, that issue is now also given reasonable coverage. . . 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Alternative text for images needed

• Comment – Wikipedia:Alternative text for images needed before it gets on the main page. . . dave souza, talk 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • My error, already done! Thanks, dave souza, talk 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"From 1689 he reigned as William III over England and Ireland..."

Hmm. Considering he was the first William to rule over Ireland, I find that odd... -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the English ordinal was used by Irish kings who were also kings of England. I suppose it's because the Kingdom of Ireland was always in personal union with the Kingdom of England; whoever happened to be King of England (or of Great Britain), was also King of Ireland. I have never heard of Henry I of Ireland and Edward I of Ireland. In fact, it so happened that, of 13 (or 14) Kings of England and Ireland between Henry VIII's proclamation and the Act of Union 1800, only three could have had different ordinals in Ireland (those three being Henry, Edward and William). The others were either the first of their name or all their namesake predecessors reigned over both the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

In William III of England, I added the link from non-trinitarians to non-trinitarians as it it is better link. I forgot to add edit summary. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Major omissions

In the legacy section, the Orange Order is only glanced over and reduced to only one sentence, and nothing is mentioned about his appearance in contemporary sectarian football songs in Scotland and elsewhere. In fact, it is probably true to say that the only historic royals who are commemorated and remembered in Scotland as much as "King Billy" are Victoria and Charles Edward Stuart, the young pretender. This is his most visible living legacy, not a few street names and statues.

The material about his homosexuality is euphemistic and bowdlerised.

His alliance with the Pope should also be mentioned as it might help clear up some of the myths - as might his alliance with certain other Catholics.

About the one thing I can say is that his Dutch background seems to be well handled, but since I don't know enough about that area, I'm not qualified to comment on it.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has too much emphasis on "legacy" and "in popular media" as it is. The article is about the man, not what 20th and 21st century people think of him. If you follow the link to Orange Order you'll find the appropriate article for its importance and relevance. Likewise, the alliance with the Pope (not really an alliance, but more of an understanding) is discussed at the Glorious Revolution page. The issue of homosexuality has been argued over far out of proportion to its relevance already; the language you read in the article is the result of arduous discussion and compromise during the article's last Featured Article Review. Coemgenus 11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case it is very important, in fact the civic life of some areas revolves entirely around it. The term "Glorious Revolution" is straight out of the Whig Interpretation of History, it was not a revolution and should not be called such. Revolutions come from below. As such wikipedia should take the lead in ditching it.-MacRusgail (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think the Orange Order is important, write about it in that article. There are lots of important things that bear some relation to William III; not all must be explained in detail in this particular article. For instance, your problem with the name of the Glorious Revolution should be addressed there. In fact, if you look at the talk page and history of that article, you'll see it already has been. Coemgenus 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If the obvious Republicans on this article are so desperate to include lengthy references his alleged homosexuality, let them, it only further highlights their bigotry and repeated attempts to distort history to their own agenda.

On a more relevant note, can anyone confirm/ deny that Kingston in Jamaica was named after William of Orange, if so perhaps that is worthy of a mention in the legacy section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hachimanchu (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

4 November

Hello. I'm rewriting Guy Fawkes Night, I'm currently expanding the origins and history section, and came across an odd problem in one of my sources. David Cressy writes that William's birthday was on 4 November, but I'm not certain this is correct. Perhaps its a typo, and he meant the 14th. Or perhaps William had two birthdays, like the Queen? Or maybe he meant something else. Can anyone clarify? (Look in the article for the clarification needed tag) Parrot of Doom 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you read footnote nr 1 with this article, you might find the answer. Mvdleeuw (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That'll do nicely, thanks very much. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Blessed by the pope?

Heard this mentioned in several place - that William of orange was blessed by the pope as a child, mainly, it should be said, by catholics trying to wind up protestants - any truth in it? FOARP (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is true. Because all Dutch royals and Stadhouders were, and stil are, Dutch Reformed. That's a form of Protestantism. So nothing Catholic there. I also couldn't find the slightest hint about this baptism at the Dutch page. Dqfn13 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

When the news of William's victory at the Boyne reached Rome, the Pope (who was bitterly opposed to Louis XIV and his policies) organised a Te Deum to be sung in thanksgiving. Train guard (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Titles in Pretence.

User DrKiernan keeps deleting the template for titles held in pretence. See talk pages for George I, George II and Anne. On those pages, there has been no engagement from DrK on this topic for over 2 months now. That should have been enough time for him to find solid evidence to back up his POV. Yet he has not posted it if he has it. Not withstanding this, he has reverted the restoration of the template. The claim is true, sourced and verifiable. There is no evidence that it is untrue. There is no source that says he recanted, reneged, disavowed or otherwise gave up the claim. What he believed in his heart about the claim is unknowable. It suffices that he made the claim for the template to be validly included. Unless proof to the contrary can be provided, I propose to insert the template and to keep re-inserting it until DrK's bizarre POV reversions desist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how my edits are either bizarre or non-neutral. The material is covered in the "Titles and styles" section. It is unnecessary and undue weight to duplicate the material. DrKiernan (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DrK and fail to see how this could be called an NPOV issue. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If mere mention in the "Titles, styles, arms" section was grounds for exclusion of the template for King of France, then the templates for all other regnal titles would have to go too. Reductio ad absurdum. It's NPOV because all of DrK's arguments have been demonstrated to be unsound. He clearly has other grounds for excluding the template which he'd rather not share with us. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DrKiernan. Seems undue weight to show it in a seperate template. Joost 99 (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the position. That William claimed the title is not in dispute. That it was a silly claim is not in dispute. That the "Titles in Pretence" template is a legitimate template is not in dispute. That articles should not be cluttered unnecessarily with duplications is not in dispute. Arguments in favour of retaining the template: 1. it supplies additional wikilinks not in the main body of the article (e.g. Capetian) 2. it is no more an item of clutter than any of the other templates and hidden info boxes - why pick on that one in particular 3. the duplication is minimal 4. the duplication is inherent to all succession boxes. All mention the facts in in the main body of the article. That's not the point of them - they're cute, neat and easily navigable 5. if the TIP template is non-essential then all other succession boxes are guilty of the same offence and ought to be deleted 6. it's not trivial - the crown of France is a serious, noteworthy title. TIP boxes are used for far less notable titles 7. it is the nature of TIP that many will be silly or embarrassing to the modern eye. Just because they have been applied to English/British monarchs is not a reason to exclude them. Are they any more deserving of being saved from embarrassing issues than other monarchs 8. a decision to delete in this case automatically invalidates the entire TIP template. I'll let others write the "Arguments in favour of deleting the template" case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should we link to Capetian? Does any biography of William link him to the failure of the Capetian succession 300 years before his birth? The point of navigation aids like infoboxes and appendices is to show the most important facts and to link to the most important related articles. They are not an excuse to pile miscellaneous trivia together in a pretty format. I infer from your comment that you think people are against inclusion because they think the claim is silly or embarassing. I believe you're the only one arguing or acting on that basis, and I'm not persuaded to include it because it might embarass Orangemen. If you want to counter Orangemen then you'd do better to add material that points out their prejudice, persecution, and discrimination, rather than material that is flowery and meaningless. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My 'Summary of the position states "That William claimed the title is not in dispute.". From what you've written above, there seems to be some doubt in your mind that this is the case. If he claimed it, then it was from the Capetian succession; if it was a title in pretence then that was so because of the failure of that succession. Are the facts of the Capetian succession seriously in doubt here? I'd be happy to goto the relevant Wiki articles to bring back a few armfuls of citations if that's what you'd like. Later, you characterise the facts in the succession box as "miscellaneous trivia" in response, I assume to point 5 above. In reply I would say that merely calling it "miscellaneous trivia" is not proving it to be so and even if it were true, you have not addressed yourself to the rest of point 5, namely, "then all other succession boxes are guilty of the same offence and ought to be deleted". You might care to comment on such consequences. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What maybe WP:SYNTHESIS is linking William's use of the title to the Capetian succession failure. I think it more likely that William's claim was from tradition and through adoption of the ancient titles of the throne of England, that is what I infer from the source I've provided. It may be there are sources, but I'm not going to look for them, because even if they do exist, it is still too trivial a point to feature in the main article.

I'm suspicious because I don't see how William can claim the French throne on the basis of Capetian succession when his father-in-law was still alive. The Plantagenet claim to the throne of France that came through Edward III still vested in James. William claimed the throne of England on the basis that James had fled the realm. He can't argue that in the French case, because James fled to France not from it. The succession rights of the Plantagenet claimants, if such a thing exists, fall to the Jacobite claimants. This is all daft original research of course, but fortunately I don't have to bother looking at real sources because I'm not the one seeking to insert material. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Curious. By that logic, since James fled to Ireland, he was still King of Ireland. As he never fled Scotland, he was still King of Scotland. Which means William was only King of England. Should we adjust the article title following these startling revelations? Also, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop with point 5 above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Of all the editors who have commented on this issue, here and on other pages, it seems only one is still pushing for inclusion. Why are we still talking about it? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it Coemgenus that advised taking the discussion here instead of edit warring? If what you really meant was "drop it buddy or else", then you should have said so. But answering your question honestly, the reason it's still being discussed is that (A) a serious rebuttal of "Arguments in favour of retaining.." has not been produced and (B) a serious contribution to "Arguments in in favour of deleting.." has not been written. What little comment there has been may be reduced to "it's trivial because I say it's trivail, so there". That fails to reach the bar for cogent, compelling argument. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretender

As DrKernan & I are now at two reversions each, etiquette demands that we take it to the talk page. So, what's your beef with the wikilink to Pretender? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Drop it; it may well be true, but doesn't need saying in the lead, if anywhere. Someone else has said the same above. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I won't drop it. It's not in the lead. It needs saying. Why should it not be said? The above discussion referred to the Template. This is about the main body. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the material is trivial and is given undue weight. If no biography of William III covers the material, it should not be in the article at all. You have provided no sources linking William III with a claim made by Edward III 300 years before, nor any source saying that William was a pretender. Secondly, if we take the fact that Elizabeth II was proclaimed "Queen of Ireland" in 1952, what you're trying to insert here is tantamount to saying "Elizabeth II is a pretender to the Irish throne". The situations are obviously parallel: "Elizabeth, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland" is logically equivalent to "William, King of England and France". But just as saying "Elizabeth made a claim to the Irish throne" is false, so it is with William and France. You have provided no sources supporting such a conclusion, and so I conclude that it is your original research. DrKiernan (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says that "Elizabeth II was proclaimed "Queen of Ireland" in 1952"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

-the 1952 proclamation of her accession proclaimed her to be (like her father ) 'Queen of Great Britain and Ireland' The subsequent 1953 Royal Titles Act changed it to: 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

...as proclaimed in Canada and S.Africa, per Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II - concur with DrKiernan. Qexigator (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Tax on windows!

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: King William III of England (Orange) introduced the 1696th the new tax - on the windows! Every household had to pay two shillings, and if the house had more than 10 windows, the tax would have been higher. Therefore, citizens are often with bricks windows closed. 93.137.42.0 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

F. Sprint

• Ref 143 S. and F. Sprint: The life of William III. Late King of England, and Prince of Orange.

Looks like J. Sprint in the original. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)