Talk:Kingdom of the Netherlands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Kingdom of the Netherlands as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Dutch language Wikipedia. |
[edit] Netherlands vs Kingdom of the Netherlands
The Netherlands article has occasionally been about the Netherlands as one of the three members of the Kindgom of the Netherlands. However at present it's about the entire kingdom. There's probably nothing wrong with that, but it implies that this Kingdom of the Netherlands should redirect to Netherlands and the article contents should be placed somewhere else.
On the other hand, it may be confusing to have a lot of articles Politics of the Netherlands etc., which are about the Netherlands alone (there is a separate Politics of the Netherlands Antilles.) Maybe Netherlands should not be about the entire kingdom?
Officially the Kingdom of the Netherlands is more or less a "federal state", like the USA or Germany, but with only 3 states. In international relations, Netherlands "redirects" to Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is responsible for foreign affairs. The obscuring detail is that the kingdom is completely dominated economically and politically by the Netherlands, so that trying to separate out the two meanings seems almost pedantic.
- I have changed the first sentence of the article Netherlands, because it seems to be about the European part only. - Patrick 18:09 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, I think this is a perfectly good solution.
I would be a proponent of merging the two items. They are for the most part identical since the Netherlands isn't really a "state" in the federal sense within the Kingdom. The distinction between the two topics can be made clear in a single sentence in the merged article.Gerard von Hebel 07:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would seem to make sense to me. Fork me 12:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Head of government / legislature
Who is the head of government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands? How are they appointed/elected? Is there a legislature? Morwen 18:25, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Beatrix of the Netherlands. Hereditary succession. I suppose the parliament of the Netherlands is defacto the legislature. Peking Duck 20:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- I said head of government, not head of state! I wasn't aware that the Netherlands was an absolute monarchy. Morwen - Talk 17:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Queen is the Head of Government. As in other Constitutional monarchies the monarch has immunity and the ministers are responsible for the actions of the government.Gerard von Hebel 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note that this disputed see talk:Prime Minister of the Netherlands. The Netherlands has no head government constitutionally C mon 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The Constitution doesn't name a hierarchy between the members of the Government. The Statute however does so, at least implicitly. It says in article 2 section 1 that the King exersizes the powers of government in the Kingdom and its constituent parts.Gerard von Hebel 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't think there is a legislature. All powers that such a branch of government would have, are delegated to the parliaments of the individual countries. The executive branch of the government consists of the head of state (Beatrix) and a number of ministers from the three governments. I think. Eugene van der Pijll 23:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Any legislation related to Defence, Foreign affairs, Citizenship and Extradition is likely to pass through the parliament of the Netherlands, so this is why I say it's defacto the legislature. Peking Duck 22:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Does this mean that the other countries don't get a say about who their citizens are?
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The Dutch parliament only contains representatives of the Netherlands, the other countries don't get any vote (after all, they have their own parliaments). The statute (in Dutch from [1]) describes the procedures. The legislature for affairs of the Kingdom is in fact the parliament of the Netherlands, but the other countries can introduce their own legislation, as can the cabinet. The islands get to comment on proposals and their representatives can take part in the debates in the parliament. Their representatives have a limited veto, where they can reject proposals unless the parliament votes for them with a majority at least 3/5 of the votes cast. Peking Duck 23:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- When the Statute was created, it was considered to create a seperate Kingdom Parliament, but the structure was considered too "heavy". Thus, the Second Chamber of the States-General functions as a Kingdom Parliament whenever Kingdom Laws (concerning all three parts of the Kingdom) are passed. Members of the States of Aruba en the Netherlands Antilles have the right to participate in these sessions, as well as the Plenipotentiary Ministers of these territories. For example, members of the Surinamese States participated in Second and First Chamber sessions in The Hague when the law on Surinamese independence was discussed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The King is both Head of State and Head of Government, a constitutional particularity. In the Netherlands, a distinction in made between the Government (or Crown) and the Council of Ministers (or Cabinet). --129.125.156.50 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] In practice
What is the meaning of the federality in everyday life?
Can nationals of one of the countries move freely to another of them? Is money transfer different than in-country? Trade? Are the overseas countries part of the European Union? They don't use the Euro, do they?
- There is only one nationality, as far as I know, so many people from the Caribbean have emigrated to the Netherlands. But the islands appear to be able to restrict immigration in the other direction. Each country has a different currency, only the Netherlands uses the Euro. The Caribbean parts are not part of the EU, but associated with it. Peking Duck 21:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] To add under "see also" section
I would like to add the following to the "see also" section.
*[[Mainland]]
*[[One Country, Two Systems]]
*[[Mainland China]]
*[[Metropolitan France]]
*[[Lower 48]] / [[Continental United States]] — Instantnood 20:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
-
- So what? You'd like to. But unless you have a good reason to do so, it will be reverted. Gene Nygaard 22:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Why should it be reverted? As a Dutchman I can say that the things Instantnood wants to add are pretty relevant. The situation isn't exactly like the Chinese situation but it's close enough. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is just an extremely compact federation. --84.26.109.69 17:18, Jan 17, 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Because these links need a lot more explanation. The situation of China/Hong Kong is similar in some aspects, and wildly different in other aspects, compared to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. An article comparing both systems (and France, and the U.S./Alaska) would probably be welcome, but to only give these links would suggest that those articles describe the Dutch situation. Eugene van der Pijll 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, that strikes me as very unhelpful comments. Obviously, most see also links "require explanation". They are clearly not meant to be synonyms, but as suggestions for further reading on related articles; these links are merely meant as a courtesy to the reader and are usually related topically, but sometimes of interest for other reasons (etymology, history, geography, etc). Users Gene and Eugene might want to brush up on this and this guideline and start from there.
-
-
-
-
- "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION". Eugene van der Pijll 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Another matter that puzzles me is the title of this page. My spontaneous thought is that since the Kingdom of Norway, Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic, and United States of America all just redirect to the common short-hand form of the country names, why doesn't the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The specific constitutional arrangements of whether peripheral outlying fragments are integrated parts of the mainland state or are external entities could generally dealt with in a separate section on those countries' main articles. But perhaps these statuses can better be understood if explained in a separate article with a more specific title (e.g. Constituent states of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, compare Overseas regions and Insular areas)? I'm not saying that all articles of the same "series" must conform to exactly the same format, but for consistency and comparability are shared "model" does help. //Big Adamsky 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- But the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is never ever used to refer to just the Netherlands, but is only used when the speaker wants to specifically include the Antilles and Aruba (or when he wants to emphasize that it is a kingdom, of course). The terms are not synonymous, and a redirect would not be appropriate here. Note that the Antilles and Aruba are not dependencies of the Netherlands, but are equal parties in the Kingdom; the situation is not completely incomparable to the British Commonwealth. The Overseas regions on the other hand are more or less on the same organizatorial level as the French regions or departments; that is: subnational entities. -- Eugene van der Pijll 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It has not been the British Commonwealth since 1949. It is now the Commonwealth of Nations. Hu 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That is true. It's a continuum, running from the Commonwealth, through the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and France, to the UK and the US (continental/Alaska/Hawaii). An article that compares all of these systems would be very welcome. Eugene van der Pijll 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Perhaps this article is comparable in substance to the one called Realm of New Zealand then? //Big Adamsky 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Judging from our article on the Realm of N.Z.: yes, these two situations look very similar. The description at Associated state of N.Z. seems to fit the Dutch situation perfectly. Eugene van der Pijll 17:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Flag
Is the flag of the kingdom of the netherlands the same as the flag of the netherlands, or should we include all three flags from the netherlands, the dutch anillies and Aruba?--KimvdLinde 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Its the same (AA-NL 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
- The same flag is used for the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, am I right? — Instantnood 22:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] King
Queen Beatrix is KING of the Netherlands, the constitution does not know the function of Queen. (AA-NL 14:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
-
- So what? Germany's Basic Law (Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland) also uses the masculin Bundeskanzler opposed to the feminine Bundeskanzlerin when describing the Federal Government, even though Angela Merkel is female. In conversation one speaks of Bundeskanzlerin Merkel off course, but in documents the male form is used. --84.26.109.69 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The UK has the Interpretation Act 1978 which determines the default for interpreting Acts of Parliament. Section 6 reads as follows:
-
In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,-
-
(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;
-
(b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;
-
(c) words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.
- Surely Dutch (and German!) law has something similar?
- Silverhelm 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC).
- A female king is a queen, by definition. I don't know if an act like the UK one exists here, but you can rest assured that it wouldn't be needed. Dutch grammar just works that way. And I can assure you that her official title is Koningin der Nederlanden. There is only one caveat: to prevent confusion, the husband of a queen is not called king, but prince instead. All the titles are specified in the Consitution. Shinobu 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
Her title is Queen of the Netherlands... however the Queen of the Netherlands is King.
- Would a Dutch equivalence of the UK law be applicable in this case?
- A queen is either a female regent, or the wife of a male regent.
- A king is a male regent, but never the husband of a female regent. The husband of a female regent is called a prince!
- So "king" and "queen" aren't male/female equivalences for the same titles. (Stefan2 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC))
-
- It is obvious that Queen regnant is meant here, not Queen consort. Maarten 20:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Indeed the Constitution considers that to be obvious. Therefore the Constitution does not state - and does not have to state - that the male term "King" includes a reigning Queen as well. The Constitution uses the term "King" neutrally both for the King and for the reigning Queen. So do the articles 108-112 of the Penal Code. These articles use the at first glance somewhat puzzling expression "the King or his husband". The expression applies to the King and his wife and to the reigning Queen and her husband.
- It would have been logical if in official documents the male form "King" was used to refer to the reigning Queen as well. However an act, the "Act of June 22, 1891 concerning the legally determined formularies, official titles and appellations in relation to the transition of the Crown to a Queen" (in Dutch: Wet van 22 juni 1891, betreffende de wettelijk vastgestelde formulieren, ambtstitels en officieele benamingen in verband met het overgaan van de Kroon op eene Koningin), states that the term “Queen” is used in stead of “King” in all legally determined formularies, official titles and appellations. 81.70.29.134 16:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] EU
Will the Kingdom Islands automatically become part of the EU? (since they'll be part of the Netherlands.) — Instantnood 21:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think they are LGOs, oversea areas that are part of EU membercountries, but not actually fully inside the EU. Shinobu 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- If they will indeed become an integral part of the Netherlands, then they'll be part of the EU just like the Azores or Réunion are despite their distance from Europe. —Nightstallion (?) 21:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- This would be correct, but since the Islands are nót an integral part of the Netherlands (for which I don't mean the Kingdom), they won't become part of the EU (following Nightstallion's reasoning). Erispre 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
hey all, I notice that the template at the beginning of the article only has a little bit of info about the Kingdom itself. I tried to create an infobox similar to the one in the article in Dutch wikipedia, but in the previews, the infobox displaced the "Netherlands history template" so that most of the history section could not be read. I then tried to see if I could edit the KotN template at the top to include the info from my infobox, but I can't do it (guess I don't know enough about editting and templates). Anyway at the very least I think the map from the infobox (which I provide below) should somehow be added to the KotN template:
Also, I know it has been covered already, but the Dutch wikipedia has articles that clearly distinguish between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands. Perhaps someone who can read Dutch can copy the info from the Dutch articles and put them in the English articles (translated of course)?72.27.26.133 21:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The distinction between the two is a messy business. The Netherlands (european part) also uses the name Kingdom of the Netherlands and the institutions of the two are not seperated. They just operate in different contexts. In a way they are two sides of the same medal.Gerard von Hebel 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No federacy federal kingdom
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is not a federation consisting of three equal parts. It is a Kingdom with two autonomous regions. The Queen is represented by a Governor in these two regions and the two regions both have a plenipotentiary minister that take part in government decisions that apply to the Kingdom as a whole. The European part of the Netherlands has no such official in the two autonomous regions. The government of the Netherlands(European part), with the two plenipotentiary ministers is therefore the Government of the Kingdom as a whole. I'll try to make the appropriate changes. EDIT: I was confused by the words federacy as opposed to federation. My mistake. C mon corrected that. The other changes I made reflect that the Netherlands is not a Federal Kingdom with federal structures for three equal constituent parts, as was mentioned in the text.Gerard von Hebel 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tone in the article
There is a certain tone in the article that gives the impression of the Netherlands being superior to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The relationship between the three countries is one of equality and not one of superiority and inferiority. My english is not that good that I can translate the dutch page into the english one... but the dutch page at the moment is more accurate. There are also certain factual points: the Kingdom of the Netherlands has no capital, and no official language.
Someone with better abillities to translate then myself should take a look at both articles and adjust the english one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.169.206.197 (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Contradiction
There appears to be a slight contradiction with Netherlands (terminology). From that article:
"Netherlands" [...] is the conventional short form used to describe the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
This suggests that "Netherlands" == "Kingdom of the Netherlands". However, this article suggests that they are different.
The current Dutch dependencies are the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. Historically Suriname and Indonesia were also part of Kingdom of the Netherlands.
But this article suggests that they are represented as equals, similar to New Zealand vs. Tokelau (and some other territories in that realm), and that neither territory is a dependency of either other territory. (Stefan2 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
No stricktly speaking neither territory is a dependency of the other, however the three "countries" are not creatures of the same type so to speak. The Netherlands (European part) also goes under the name of "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and its institutions are not seperated from the institutions that govern the afairs of the whole Kingdom. One could say that the Kingdom operates in two legal contexts seperately. The European context and the Statute or Charter context, while both other countries within the Kingdom have entirely seperate institutions.Gerard von Hebel 20:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems that some pages describe the situation as it is de jure, while other pages describe the situation as it is de facto, whithout stating whether it is de jure or de facto. This is confusing. (Stefan2 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
- If one speaks about the Netherlands it is, most of the time, about the Netherlands, not about the Kingdom. In Dutch media the Kingdom of the Netherlands is usually called "het koninkrijk" (the kingdom), I have never seen that "the Netherlands" is used as a term for the kingdom. People of all constituent nations together are called "rijksgenoten" (fellow "kingdom men") , whereas "landgenoten" (felow countrymen) usually only applies to the people within a constituent country. Maarten 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I fixed this on the Netherlands (terminology) article. Maarten 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging "Netherlands" and "Kingdom of the Netherlands"?
Hi,
I propose to merge the articles Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands.
I know this proposition has at first glance no chance of success because those two articles theoretically deal with two distinct entities: the Netherland is a European region; the Kingdom of the Netherlands is the federation bringing togeteher three subjects: the Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. At first view there is no reason to merge these two articles.
But that's theory. The fact is the Kingdom of the Netherlands is the official name of an independent country, subject of public international law and "the Netherlands" (in the definition given in the Netherlands Wikipedian article) are only a part of it, as Jutland is only a part of Denmark. For example, in every treaty establishing the European Union (Treaty of Rome, of Amsterdam, of Maastricht, of Nice...) it's clear that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a member state of the EU. I think the same apply in every international organization the Netherlands are part of. What English Wikipedia calls "The Netherlands" is not an independent country.
And on Wikipedia, the confusion between the two entities is total. For example, every article about the EU states that the Netherlands are part of it, and links from every such articles or template boxes lead to the Netherlands article, instead of Kingdom of the Netherlands. Furthermore, all non-political facts about this country are given in the Netherlands artcle, not in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article. All should be put into the article dealing about the independent country subject of international law.
Maybe it's important for clarity to have two separate articles about two different subjects. But the separation used today in English Wikipedia isn't good at all. There should be one great article about the country, including most of the text which is now in Netherlands, and in it a political chapter explaining exactly the status of "Kingdom of the Netherland" as the status of this country. This large article must be named Netherlands, because "the Netherlands" are the short form of "the Kingdom of the Netherlands", as "France" is the short form of "the French Republic". Reading the European treaties show us clearly that the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is used every time a long form is needed for the name of the country and the term "Netherlands" is used when a short form is needed. There must be one article merging the two existing articles and it must bear the short form name, like every other article about independent countries.
After that, a new article can be created, under a name such as Netherlands (proper) or Netherlands (continental part) or anything else you want, speaking specifically of the continental part of the country. And I even say: speaking specifically of the administrative and political specificity of "the Netherlands" as one of the parts of the federation called "the (Kingdom of the) Netherlands". Every historical, geographical, cultural facts should be put in the main Netherlands article and not in this one.
What do you think of it ? Every suggestion and comment are welcomed! But in order to avoid to scatter the discuion, please answer here.
Švitrigaila 11:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the merging of the two articles.
The constitutional situation concerning the Netherlands versus the Kingdom of the Netherlands is complicated and the two notions are for a big part overlapping.
The charter speaks of three countries, The Netherlands, The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, however the three are not constitutionally the same and the concept "land" is not univocal in its meaning. Remember that the Charter is a very provisional document. Too illustrate this: for all intents and purposes, internal and external, the country "Netherlands" uses the same name as the whole namely "Kingdom of the Netherlands".
The Charter of the Kingdom, while the highest legislative document of the Kingdom, refers for the institutions of the Kingdom to the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, while prescribing certain additions to rule on certain matters pertaining to Aruba and the Antilles. The Charter and the Constitution are supplemental when it comes to the matters pertaining the Kingdom as a whole (as stated in the document of clarification to the Charter)
While the Charter provides for basic laws to regulate the government of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, it states that the government of the Netherlands (the European part) is regulated by before mentioned Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in which also the institutions of the whole are constituted.
The latter document however fails to constitute separate institutions for the "country" Netherlands, while it could have done so. It leaves the government of that country to the same institutions the Charter speaks of and which were in existence long before the Charter.
It could be said that the "Country Netherlands" and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are overlapping concepts in that sense. The Kingdom has two functions, a Charter function pertaining to the whole and a Constitution function pertaining to some matters of the whole but mainly the government of the territory in Europe. In that sense the government of the territory in Europe and the government of the Kingdom as a whole are two sides of the same medal called "Kingdom of the Netherlands"
Again, nowhere the "country Netherlands" defines itself as such officially. Externally nor internally. This is different for Aruba and the Antilles which have their own basic law. The institutions that run the affairs of the European part of the Kingdom are not separated from the Institutions that run the whole. The Dutch cabinet doesn't sit one day as the government of the Netherlands and the next day as the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands but ALWAYS as the latter. The ministers are not separately installed as ministers for the Kingdom as a whole and as ministers of the European part. The institutions, while practicing in different judicial contexts, are literally the same for Charter and for Constitution purposes and not just similar (as Maarten says). They are just added to for Charter purposes by two plenipotentiary ministers. It is however still the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of the Netherlands either way!
In that light it seems to me that definitionally the separation between the two terms cannot be upheld. While it is used in common parlance to bring some clarity into a complicated matter, it is wrong to use the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands" only in its Charter context while ignoring it has a meaning in the Constitution context as well. I posted the same on the talk page of the other article.Gerard von Hebel 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move some data from infobox to table?
The infobox mentions 3 data for each of several items, it is more convenient to have a table with that info.--Patrick 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Netherlands New Guinea
New Guinea never was a constituent nation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; in stead, it was a crown colony ruled directly by the Netherlands proper.--62.163.205.212 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
