Jump to content

Talk:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands

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

Length of reign

[edit]

I'm looking for some opinions relating to the length of her reign. Technically her reign ceased when the Nazi's took power in the Netherlands and she therefore essentially became a Pretender from 1940 until her return. The head of state of the Netherlands in WWII was Adolf Hitler. Despite not officially abdicating, she was a deposed monarch between this period. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.79.82 (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She formed a government in exile as some other monarchs did during the war. The Dutch certainly continued to recognizer her as head of the country, not Hitler. And she did not resign until after the war was over. If she was no longer monarch, she would have had nothing to abdicate from. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:7D74:380:F306:1582 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Hoi from Enschede, The Netherlands

There is a minor impreciseness in the article. The city of Walcheren is not in southern Holland, but in the province of Zeeland. Greetings, Bas and Nic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.154.103 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suggestive entry

[edit]

I have deleted following entry as it is not factual but suggestive:

Had Wilhelmina not given the throne to her daughter before her death, she would have reigned for 72 years 5 days, which would have been the second-longest reign in Europe (behind that of Louis XIV of France), seventh-longest in the world, and the longest reign by a female monarch in history.

Abercrombieclub (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

style

[edit]

Queen Wilhelmina was never styled as Queen Mother after her abdication. Only a widowed queen consort can style herself Queen Mother, as for example the late Queen Mother of the United Kingdom. Queen Wilhelmina was a Queen in her own right and was therefore styled Princess.

Princess of the Netherlands 's-Gravenhage 09:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er, no, she could have been styled "Queen Wilhelmina" after her abdication, which is how abdicated monarchs are normally referred. Leopold III didn't become "Prince Leopold" after his abdication, for instance. john k 20:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
alas, this is incorrect, Dutch monarchs revert to the title of Prince(ss) upon their abdication, so Queen Wilhelmina became Princess Wilhelmina, and Queen Juliana Priness Juliana. They are only adressed as King or Queen after their death, so now again it would be correct to speak of both Queen Wilhelmina and Juliana --Isolani 05:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dutch monarchs do, and I wasn't denying that. But the earlier comment by 's-Gravenhage implied that this is a necessity for any monarch who abdicates. So far as I am aware, Dutch monarchs are relatively unique in reverting to a non-royal title after abdication, which is why I said that she could have been referred to as "Queen Wilhelmina" after her abdication. Obviously, she was not so referred, but there was no particular reason she should not have been. Do you happen to know how William I was referred to after his abdication? I somehow doubt he became "Prince William," - which would suggest that Wilhelmina's becoming "Princess Wilhelmina" was without precedence. (Obviously, there are occasional other examples of former monarchs losing their style of King or Queen, most notably the Duke of Windsor). john k 05:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies for any misconceptions I might have had; I`m fairly sure that William must have reverted to Prince as the dutch constitution only defines the office of 'King', so of necessity there can be only one King and that must be the reigning one. As the title of Queen is not mentioned in the constitution (yes, this is odd) a Queen-Dowager (such as Emma) could keep her title. But I`ll see if I can find any source which would confirm him as being styled 'prince' iso 'king', tho not in the next few days I`m afraid --Isolani 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that most constitutional monarchies note that there can only be one king at a time. That doesn't mean that former monarchs don't get to use the style of king. That is to say, he would not be the King of the Netherlands, but his style would still be "King William." john k 16:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I know what you mean, what I`m trying to say is that that would be highly unlikely because it would be considered confusing in a constitutional sense, I checked on King William II , but my political history textbook mentions that he died in office, so that leaves William I to check out. --Isolani 17:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmm it becomes increasingly complex; i have info suggesting he kept his title of "Prince of Orange-Nassau" and another source which described him and his second wife (Countess D'Oultremont) as 'Count and Countess of Nassau' no source styling him 'King' ; confusion upon confusion.. I`m going to go to the library tomorrow to do some research. I do know for certain that under current legislation any ruling monarch automatically reverts to their princely titles. --Isolani 17:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever do iron it out, it should go under the Dutch monarchy article. john k 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is relevant to this question is to bear in mind that the Orange-Nassau family where a princely (i know, quirky adjective) family before they became royalty. Strictly speaking they are not kings (or queens) in their own right but rather, and solely, because the Dutch constitution of 1815 first created the office of 'King of the Netherlands' which heretofore had not existed. One could argue that the title of 'King' is tied to the office, and the members of the Royal family are princes in their own right and use this title when not holding the office of King (or Queen). --Isolani 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, William I was called "His Royal Highness King Willem Frederik, Count of Nassau." See here. So I was indeed right that there was no particular reason for Wilhelmina not to be Queen Wilhelmina after her abdication. She could have been "Her Royal Highness Queen Wilhelmina, Countess of Nassau" - or something like that. john k 16:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
darn you beat me to it! But I think you are jumping to conclusions, Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948 and under current legislation nobody would be styled King / Queen after they abdicated, such legislation may have been (don`t know yet) in force then, I`ll check it out and hopefully leave this talk page with at least some of my dignity intact. --Isolani 19:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • this article is rather imprecise and quite POV; it really has to be cleaned up!

--Isolani 19:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then take a stab at it! john k 20:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, I am! care to help ? --Isolani 05:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of Wilhelmina is fairly limited, so I'm not sure I'd be able to contribute much. Taking a look at what you've done so far, the added details about Wilhelmina in 1940 look good. I do think that the military armistice on May 14 should be mentioned, though. john k 05:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a propos, I added some more info to the page, and got rid of some nonsense --Isolani 17:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the 'disputed' tag, I think a lot of details in this article are unsubstantiated, cf the history of the article esp last few days. I`m going to spend some time cleaning it up, help would be appreciated. --Isolani 06:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Well I have disposed of the more dubious bits, now begins the reconstruction, I`ll use the, quite excellent, dutch wikipedia article on Wilhelmina as a model, for now I`m removing the 'disputed' tag. --Isolani 16:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Had she not given up the throne, she would have been Queen for 72 years, and would have been the longest serving monarch in the world." --Only at the time. Louis XIV would still have had a longer reign by a few months, and Pepi II of Egypt supposedly reigned for 94 years.--Syd Henderson 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

This page was looking quite a mess, there were info boxes and pictures all over the place. I simply moved them around and alligned them differently. Hope you think it looks better. Mac Domhnaill 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ten year difference between dob in the article and dob under the Queen's portrait. Sorry, but I am unlikely to be proofing or editing articles much in the future, if at all, so would rather have someone who knows how to make the change do so.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjarecki (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. She was born on 31 August 1880, she was 10 years old when she became Queen on 23 November 1890, which is the date under the portrait - the dates of her reign, not of her life. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic part

[edit]
A socialist leader named Troelstra tried to overthrow the government and the Queen. Instead of a violent revolution, he wanted to control the Tweede Kamer, the legislative body of Parliament and hoped to achieve this by means of elections convinced that the working class would support him. However, the popularity of the young Queen helped restore confidence in the government. Wilhelmina brought about a mass-show of support by riding with her daughter through the mobs in an open carriage. It was very clear that the revolution would not succeed.

Could someone please explain how this was an attempted "revolution" and "overthrow," rather than an election and campaign? - Montréalais 15:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following the example of Russia (and in some respects Germany) Troelstra had announced a revolution by the working classes, but instead of support and an actual revolution, people came out and a large demonstration in The Hague took place where people declared themselves to be in favour of the Royal family, so his 'revolution' never took place, but was his intention. The Queen played a small role in the matter, as she and her daughter (and possibly husband, not sure though) rode around town. This event is known as "Troelstras mistake" (Source Anno: http://www.anno.nl/i000942.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.208.34 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard supporter of the nazi's

[edit]

Although he always claimed himself not to be involved with the NSDAP-party, he was a member of the SA and later the Reiter-SS. This is documented and confirmed by the Dutch Center for War Documentation (NIOD). Bernhard claims he was made member without his consent or knowledge. The statement in this article, therefore, is false: there are documents supporting Bernhard being a nazi (for a short while at least), but he never admitted it. 145.58.239.247 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

membership of the Reiter-SS does not quite denote 'being a nazi' in any kind of ideological sense, whatever his membership status he seems to have disentangled himself from it soon enough, or at least as soon as he became prince-consort. The phrase in this article might do with a rewrite, as long as the resulting text remains within the bounds of verifiability. --Isolani 13:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article not need to point up the irony that she sent a warship to rescue Paul Kruger from the British after the Boer War (in reality they let him go......) but those same British at her request sent a warship to pick her up in May 1940. Bedwasboy (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "irony" - the Dutch rescued Kruger because he was a Boer (Afrikaner of Dutch extraction) and their sympathies were with their former countrymen, while the British rescued Wilhelmina because they needed her as a card against the Germnans like they needed the other governments-in-exile. Kruger did not represent a government in exile in the Netherlands or - later - Switzerland, nor did the Dutch seek to support a resistance movement in annexed Transvaal. There is more irony in Wilhelmina defending the abdicated Kaiser and then being forced to flee his successors.--91.157.209.63 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a chronological inaccuracy in the following sentence:

The marriage initially drew controversy because the NIOD discovered that Bernhard had been a member of the so-called Reiter-SS, but he proved to be a loyal Dutch citizen by cutting off relations with relatives who were enthusiastic Nazis.::

The marriage was in 1937. NIOD was established in 1945.--Meepwn53 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with location in article

[edit]

In the section on World War II, the sentence "She went aboard a British cruiser at The Hague, which was to take her there." appears. Problem is, The Hague is not a port. Scheveningen is a port, and is close to The Hague. Is that the correct location? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots -- Yes, you've identified an illustration of a commonly occurring mis-statement, e.g., see here in which the writer explains that "Queen Wilhelmina and the Dutch government departed The Hague aboard two British destroyers ...." Sometimes English usage is conventionally imprecise -- as it in this instance; and sometimes English can become very explicit. --Tenmei (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only real man?

[edit]

The World War II section says Winston Churchill once said that Wilhelmina of the Netherlands was the only real man in London. Although I don't have the book at hand, I remember reading in "Wilhelmina: een Koninklijke koppige Mevrouw" (Wilhelmina: a Royal sturdy Madam) by Bert van Nieuwenhuizen that this quote is ungrounded and not true.

Furthermore it could be noted that both Bert van Nieuwenhuizen in his previously mentioned book and dr. L. de Jong in "Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog" (The Kingdom of the Netherlands in de Second World War) said that the foreign state officials didn't want to negotiate with Queen Wilhelmina as she wished. Instead they wanted to communicate with the Dutch government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qense (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status at birth

[edit]

The article said that at birth she was second in line to the throne. Since her Great Uncle Prince Frederick was still alive at this time and the Netherlands rules of succession were semi-salic up to 1887, she was of course third in line at that point. I made the appropriate changes in the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. According to article 15 of the constitution of 1848, the throne would go to a daughter of the king if there were no more sons. William III would have been succeeded bij his sister Sophie. Mvdleeuw (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are meaning. How could the Constitutional change of 1887 have influenced the status of Wilhelmina at her birth in 1880? Or the status of Prince Frederick untill he died a year later in 1881. That is what I'm talking about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You,ve changed it now to 1848. The succession remained semi salic at that time. Meaning that if the whole male line of the House of Orange Nassau became extinct a woman could succeed, Since several royal Princes were alive at that point there was no need for the invokement of that provision. In 1887 The semi salic system was replaced by a cognatic agnatic system or what we call the Castillian system. Only then it was provided for that a daughter of a King could succeed when there were no elder brothers and the agnates that were brothers or uncles of the King would come after her. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course since 1813 women could succeed. That was also repeated in article 15 of the 1848 constitution. But only after the whole male line from King William I had died out! That is what is meant by semi salic. Untill his death in 1881 Prince Frederick therefore came before any King's daughter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly put 1887 where I meant 1848. I will investigate this a bit more, as article 15 seems to be open for more interpretations. Mvdleeuw (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've looked it over and stand corrected. Thanks for your clarification! Mvdleeuw (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage and succession

[edit]

The birth of Juliana, on 30 April 1909, was met with great relief after eight years of childless marriage.[5]

Not well-known are the events leading to the birth of this, her only child. In 1908 the Queen went for a brief vacation to Marienbad, Austria. Since it was not an official state visit, she had only a small entourage with her and no welcoming ceremony greeted her arrival at the train station. However, there was a huge crowd of Jews at the station. They had come to greet a prominent Jewish personality, the Munkaczer Rebbe, Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Spira (1845-1914). Upon inquiring as to what a Rebbe is, she was told that he is a very pious man of great wisdom who bestows blessings and gives advice. Often his prayers are answered and those who are blessed have their wishes fulfilled. She asked one of her attendants to arrange a private meeting with the great sage. They met in a park that evening. The Queen was accompanied by two attendants and the Rebbe with two young men. She spoke candidly about her torment and anxiety about not having a child to carry on the monarchy. The Rebbe assured her that her monarchy would continue and using the terminology that the angel used when predicting to Abraham's wife Sarah that she would have a child, told her that she would have a child within a year. The Rebbe also predicted that her monarchy will never be severed until the Jewish Messiah arrives. An interesting sequel to the story is that one of the young men who served as the interpreter (The Rebbe and the Queen did not share a common language) obtained consent from the Queen to immigrate to Holland after surviving the horrors of Bergen-Belsen during WWII. He never forgot the graciousness of the royal family and in his foreword to his first book published after the war, "Leket HaKemach HaChadash Vol. 3" he writes, "G-d guided my footsteps to Amsterdam through the personal intervention of the magnanimous Queen Wilhelmina, may G-d exalt her glory, before she abdicated in favour of her daughter Queen Juliana. May her monarchy continue until the Jewish Messiah comes." The entire story with its sources can be found in "Echoes of the Maggid",`p. 95-99, by Rabbi Paysach J. Krohn, published by Mesorah Publications, LTD, Brooklyn, NY, USA, March 1999. Barryfadams (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of Juliana

[edit]

What was wrong with my addition about the events leading up to the birth of Juliana. If you check them out with the Royal House you will find them to be true. Barryfadams (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked this out at the site of the Royal House (http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl) and there is nothing to be found about this matter. Mvdleeuw (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flight to England in May 1940

[edit]

Sources quoted here are all contemporary and rather colored. It has been established some time ago (Nanda van der Zee, 1997 Om erger te voorkomen; ISBN 90 290 7338 1; this specific allegation was confirmed by Hans Blom, director of the Netherlands Institution of War Documentation) that the escape to the UK by the royals had been planned some time in advance, and that there was never any intention of going to Zeeland. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I have taken the liberty of altering references from 'Nazis' to Germans or Germany in this section as there are references to the British and the Dutch so this seems more in keeping. Reference to invasion by 'Nazi Germany' in 1940 seemed superfluos so I've taken the liberty of cutting it down to 'Germany'. Was there any other Germany in 1940? I question whether references to flight to 'England' is correct and if the United Kingdom should be used in general terms. Reference to a house in England seems appropriate, however. Robata (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later years

[edit]

The article states that in 1948, "The Dutch Royal Family was also one of seven European royal houses remaining in existence". At that time, the following European countries had reigning hereditery monarchs: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (=8); in addition, Luxembourg, Monaco and Liechtenstein were ruled by a prince or grand duke, for a total of eleven. Of these, only Greece has since given up monarchy.--Death Bredon (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Spain certainly didn't have a reigning monarch 1948, I certainly remember Juan Carlos' coming to the throne in 1975! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, give you that, but the Spanish Royal house was nevertheless in existence, though mainly in Italy -- Juan Carlos himself, however, was in Spain since 1948. The wording is not perhaps the best, since many other royal houses - primarily from the Balkan area - were still "in existence" (and most still are) although in exile. Then there still remains the question of whether the hereditary ruling families of Luxembourg, Monaco, and Liechtenstein are "royal houses".--Death Bredon (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch monarchs move discussion

[edit]

Please join in: Talk:Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands#Move discussion DBD 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Hungarian Honour

[edit]

I don't think she ever was awarded with the Knight Grand Cordon of the Military Order of Maria Theresa. because it is a military order which wasn't awarded to woman. Also the named sources don't show or name it, and i couldn't find any other sources about her "membership". User:PM (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Wilhelmina 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) 00:16, 23 December 2017 (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) 19:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

[edit]

I believe there is a mistake in the passage following Juliana's birth. Surely, it was not her who had two more miscarriages but her mother Wilhelmina? Anncatx (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that century, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, miscarriages were quite common. If Queen Wehilimina had a son, Juliana would definitely be second in line to the throne. Preferably over women he would probably be William IIII 2402:800:63A7:F84A:FC36:4FF1:F613:F309 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the Netherlands choose a male successor instead of Princess Wehilimina

[edit]

I wonder if the Dutch Salic law still existed at that time and why they didn't choose a distant Protestant relative to replace a woman like young wehilimina? 2402:800:63A7:F84A:FC36:4FF1:F613:F309 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilhelmina_of_the_Netherlands&oldid=1232965060"