Talk:Juliana of the Netherlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Punctuation[edit]

Why were apostrophes changed into question marks ?

  • looks like a typical MS Word --> text thing. Did you have SmartQuotes on? -- Viajero 11:58 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Is the article title appropriate? Has a legendesque feel to it, like Joan of Arc. If it's a common popular nominative, I apologize. -- Gyan 23:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)-

House[edit]

She did not belong to the house of Orange-Nassau. She belonged to the ducal house of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. "Queen of the Netherlands" was a position she inherited from her mother, but she still belonged to the Mecklenburg-Schwerin family. In continental Europe, nobility and family membership is based on the Salian Law and only inherited on the agnatic side. Ertz 00:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even their own official website says that they are the House of Orange-Nassau [1]. Are you telling me they're wrong? Anyway: "The Dutch constitution refers to the head of state as 'the King', even when the monarch is a woman, like the present Queen Beatrix." So, Queen Beatrix is constitutionally the King, which bypasses Salic law, even if it was (ever?) applicable, which I doubt, because (among many reasons):

  • Salic law forbade female succession to property but were not concerned with titles or offices.
  • Some people wrongly think that Salic Law forbids females and those descended in the female line to succeed to the titles or offices in the family. Even if this was true, applying it to the Netherlands (and most if not all of the European constituational monarchies) these days is erroneous, because the females patently DO inherit the titles and offices.
  • The Dutch monarchy is now a constitutional monarchy based on the Dutch constitution and acts of parliament, which supersedes any previous laws/customs that the succession was based on, be they Salic or not.

Elf-friend 01:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

>"Even their own official website says that they are the House of Orange-Nassau"

And I may tell you on my home page that I belong to the house of Orange-Nassau as well. Why shouldn't I? The thing is, that nobility, the basis of the position of this woman, is based solely on salic family succession. She may succeed to the "King" position, she may inherit property and so forth from her mother, but she still technically belongs to her own (agnatic) family, of course. You should also take into account the family laws of the house of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and German Adelsrecht. Just because she inherited a Dutch position, this of course did not mean that she lost her own noble status. Ertz 18:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think I'd still believe their claim to be of the House of Orange-Nassau before I'll believe your claim, for a start. :-)

Seriously, though, if taken to their logical conclusion, your arguments would imply that if a queen (of any given royal house) ever marries a commoner she (or at least her children) would lose their noble status, which certainly cannot be the case.

The children of that queen will certainly not lose anything, because the status of their maternal family have never been a possession of their own family. However, their own agnatic family will became royal itself, when the throne becomes a possession of that family. Ertz 23:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, Dutch law takes precedence over so-called "family laws" or the laws of other countries in this case, as it concerns the Dutch sovereign.

Elf-friend 20:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article is dealing with the person, which is also Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Ertz 23:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The House of Orange-Nassau, in the classical sense of the term, became extinct with the death of Queen Wilhelmina. The term "House of Orange-Nassau" has no legal status in the Dutch monarchy however. The title pertaining to the house can be given to descendants in the female line, but is not hereditary anymore. It is therefore not the subject of Salic or any other rules of inheritance of noble titles anymore. Technically one could say that the present members represent the House in a "semi-salic" way because there were no male lines to take precedence. This happened to the Habsburgs and the Romanovs as well. It has by the way nothing to do with the Dutch Queen being constitutionally King or with the notion that this overrides salic or semi salic law.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

The lead section needs to be expanded to fit the article length. Please mention what she did that was notable, that set herself from others. --Jiang 09:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inauguration in which church?[edit]

At the end of "Return to Netherlands" it says she was inaugurated "in the New Church in Amsterdam". New Church is one of several designations for a number of international Swedenborgian organizations. Is this reference meant to be to a Swedenborgian church in Amsterdam? If not, New Church may need disambiguation.

> The New Church is the name of a Church (building) in Central Amsterdam, not the name of a religious denomination. In Dutch it is called Nieuwe Kerk, see Nieuwe Kerk (Amsterdam), which would be more appropriate in this article. Wtrncln (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Titles[edit]

I notice that User:Matjlav just changed the opening phrase from:

Her Majesty Juliana Louise Emma Marie Wilhelmina (April 30, 1909 - March 20, 2004), Princess of Orange-Nassau, Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

to:

Her Majesty Queen Juliana Louise Emma Marie Wilhelmina (April 30, 1909 - March 20, 2004)

I'm guessing that before her death these were the titles she held post-abdication, and that since her death it has become appropriate to revert them to the primary title she held during life, but I thought it was worth checking here in case discussion were needed. Hv 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Throughout her life, Queen Juliana was never "Her Majesty Princess Juliana." I think it most definitely makes no sense to have the intro written in that way. (unsigned contribution by Matjlav)
In the Dutch version of this page Juliana van Nederland exactly the same assertion is made:
Na haar troonsafstand is (vanaf dat moment weer prinses) Juliana steeds actief gebleven in het sociale circuit.
(Rough translation: "After her abdication (from that moment once again "princess"), Juliana stayed active on the social circuit.")
So I think you put it too strongly - she really was known as 'Princess Juliana' after her abdication - but since her death, she would be known as 'Queen Juliana', so your edit is in my opinion fine. Hv 20:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I would be fine with the edit if they took out "Her Majesty" and put in "Her Royal Highness," but saying "Her Majesty Juliana, Princess of Orange-Nassau, etc." is just wrong.

Sorry, forgot to sign again. But since we're on the subject, should we say all of Queen Juliana's forenames? I thought it was customary that in title a monarch drops all but one name (or sometimes two) in their title. Compare Queen Beatrix; it just says "Her Majesty Queen Beatrix (Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard Orange-Nassau)". Should we adopt that custom for Queen Juliana and Queen Wilhelmina? --Matjlav 00:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should drop the forenames from the main bit, and have them parenthezed, as we do with others. john k 02:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen Mother does not exist in the Netherlands and was never used to offically or unoffically to refer to Queen Juliana while she was styled as Princess Juliana prior to her death. Queen Mother is a wholly British function that has no place in an article about a Dutch Queen or Princess. Princess Juliana is known posthumously as Her Majesty Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. Instead of listing her as Queen mother styled as Princess it would better to just list that she was styled as Princess Juliana of the Netherlands following her abdication until her burial. This is an accurate reprentation of how she was styled. 76.105.150.19 06:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Queen Brandissima

There have been two Queen mothers in the Netherlands. Anna and Emma. The title is not official but used unoficially for Queen-Consorts that are widowed and who'se child has succeeded to the throne. The same as in Britain and many other countries, where it is also not official. Juliana could never be a Queen-mother because she was a reigning Queen and not a Queen-consort. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Surname[edit]

In Dutch, is not it spelled van Oranje-nassau?--Anglius 20:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations required[edit]

This article has practically no citations, footnotes, etc. Mowens35 15:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

This article tells much about:

  • her modesty (A young, shy and introverted woman of plain features; asking that she and her children be treated as just another family during difficult time; did her own grocery buying and shopped at Woolworth's Department Store; She believed that the days of an aloof, near-isolated monarchy were over, and that the royal children should interact as much as possible with average citizens)
  • her "hard" life (her religious mother would not allow her to wear makeup, Juliana did not fit the image of a Royal Princess)
  • her popularity among the Dutch (She would, nonetheless, become much loved and respected by most of the Dutch people)
  • her popularity among the Canadians (Juliana quickly endeared herself to the Canadian people, displaying simple warmth)
  • her friendliness (When her next door neighbour was about to give birth, the Princess of the Netherlands offered to baby-sit the woman's other children)

...and that's before I even came to the part named "Queen". Don't you think this article is biased in her favour, let alone the fact that there are no citations? Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is too much: "This time, the Dutch people rather than calling on the Queen to abdicate, were fearful their beloved Juliana might abdicate"; "The Queen was noted for her courtesy and kindness". Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink required[edit]

Regarding the 1964 impending marriage of Juliana's daughter to a Spaniard - there is the entry:
With memories of the Dutch struggle for independence from Catholic Spain and fascist German oppression still fresh in the minds of the Dutch people . . .

Would not the struggle referred to be the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648)? I don't see that as possibly being 'still fresh in the minds of the Dutch people' but I might be wrong. It might be better stated and should definitely be linked as those unfamiliar with Dutch history might think it a relatively recent struggle and on a par with the 'fascist German oppression' of a few decades prior.--User:Brenont (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pandering to Royals?[edit]

The article states, "As the Dutch constitution specified that she should be ready to succeed to the throne by the age of eighteen, Princess Juliana's education proceeded at a faster pace than that of most children."

"Most children" are fully educated by the time they are 18. Perhaps there is a different rule for royals? John Paul Parks (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for abdication[edit]

No reason is given for her abdication, do we know of any reason that could have been publicly issued by the palace? --Lgriot (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason was certainly old age. Her mother abdicated when she reached old age and William I abdicated as well (though for different reasons). Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dutch monarchs move discussion[edit]

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

Ruler[edit]

The article states that Juliana became the 12th member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands. However, the Netherlands were a republic until 1806. Juliana was strictly speaking the 5th ruler from the House of Orange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.254.190 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Attempt at kidnapping Juliana of the Netherlands into Juliana of the Netherlands.

I propose that Attempt at kidnapping Juliana of the Netherlands be merged into Juliana of the Netherlands. The first article is short, and was originally created as a translation of nl:Gijzelingspoging Juliana (see: WP:PNT). The content could easily be added here without causing any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I can't think of any good reason why it should remain a separate article. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I had intended to add a {{Mergenote}} to Talk pages of users who had edited the source article, but the originator, Elve74 (talk · contribs), hasn't had a contribution in a decade, and no one else contributed any significant amount of text. Mathglot (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the merger as proposed. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juliana 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Children[edit]

This is my BRD talk opening. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Recently, only two children were mentioned in #marriage. I removed that: all children or none I'd say [2]. However, Andy Dingley came along and reverted me (once no argumentation, twice strange note 'The others are covered in the following sections'), while ignoring my argument "all or none" (twice). Andy even got the guts to accuse me of edit warring [3].

All in all, I still propose to have the all-or-nore text in there. And I will charge Andy when they do not engage in a talk-argue-agree route here. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Before you edited this, all four children were mentioned, in chronological order. Afterwards you had deleted the first two. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Before you edited this, all four children were mentioned: NO, only two were mentioned in section #Marriage [4]. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
All four were mentioned, in the relevant chronological sections. There is no reason why all four need to be mentioned in one paragraph. Why would they? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the "all or nothing" guideline you seem to use - Imagine if that was used on all Wikipedia articles with the mindset "Complete or Delete"? Even if there were just two (which there wasn't) two would still be better than none. So removing them without a legitimate reason could be taken as vandalism. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Let me explain this again: Section #Marriage mentioned two children, not four. Why? -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Still not seeing a reason to delete though, if you want that section to cover all four then go ahead and add it. The beauty of Wikipedia and all. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Is what I said from the start: all [four] or none. So what is you issue with my editing? -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
So I suggested "Then add it" as your option (you know the encylopedia EVERYONE can add) and thus provide an addition to the article. Your choice was to remove, thus reducing the quality of the article. If you cannot see the difference in approaches you may not have totally grasped the concept. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
All fine, but being equally consistent by removing an incomplete list should not lead to BF posts and an ANI report. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
True, it should not be, but your refusal to listen to facts and your comments towards other editors is why you are there now. It is sad that you forced the issue. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I think everyone would agree that we should list all four children. But there's no reason that they all have to be mentioned in the same paragraph – especially not when (as is hugely well known) the third was born in the same country, on a different continent. You are the one cutting the article to give only a partial list of the births. Now that might just be a genuine mistake, but when you're in a hole, a wise editor would stop digging, not start threatening others. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Please first withdraw you ANI post, Andy. Don't just come here lately making peace while there was no war in the first place. You've made unreasonable bad faith accusations against me. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
...while there was no war in the first place
There was and is. By you. Which is why the the ANI post was made in the first place. Because it's about you, and your behavior. You. No one else. You. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juliana_of_the_Netherlands&oldid=926291076"