Talk:Beatrix of the Netherlands/Archive 1

Untitled
Anyone have an idea of what to put on this subject? (Zenxlow (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Picture
THe current picture is simply horrible because of it's very low quality. Someone please replace it Daimanta 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the part saying that the book 'De aanslag' by Harry Mulisch is about the riots during Her Majesty's marriage. De Aanslag is a well-known work about life during nazi-occupation. --83.118.94.73 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Have added the Dutch Royal family template, was quite shocked to not find it here--Dudeness10 16:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone list all the Qeens titles (maybe in Titles of Beatrix of the Netherlands)? And maybe a discussion on the usage of these titles. I've seen on a guilder note that all the titles were shortened to "H.M. Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard, koningin der Nederlanden, prinses van Oranje-Nassau, prinses van Lippe-Biesterfeld etc.". Is this the usual thing to do or is it just "H.M. Beatrix" or something?

A possible source: http://www.parlement.com/9291000/biof/10001 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gorm (talk • contribs).

Done -- 81.132.199.72 17:46, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mecklenburg-Schwerin
Following the death of Princess Juliana has HM Queen Beatrix inherited the title Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and where would it appear in the list of Her titles? garryq 14:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-

Those are the worst hats I've ever seen in my entire life. I love them. - Montr&eacute;alais 07:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Titles
Officialy, Beatrix has not adopted the title of Grand-Duchess of Mecklenburg Schwerin. Being in Germany, Salic Law usualy prevails, and women cannot assume such titles. It is likely that Juliana's use of the title was, in fact, only a courtesy title as her father was the sovereign duke (Such events are customary, and are not usually passed on to the decendants).

Also, I suspect it was a tricky issue, as at the time of Juliana's abdication, Mecklenburg was part of the communist DDR, and diplomaticaly, was easier not to pass on the title (although I am only speculating).

Personaly though (despite it not meaning anything to anyone else), I recognise the title as Beatrix's (but I also regard Her as the true Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, and Queen of the United Netherlands). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 's-Gravenhage (talk • contribs).

Titles 2
HM The Queen Beatrix does not use the title of Duchess of Mecklenburg. It must be made clear that in any case she cannot use the title of Grand-Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin because her grandfather, from whom the title comes (HRH Henry, Prince of the Netherlands, Duke of Mecklenburg), was a duke and not a grand-duke. His father was a grand-duke but since Henry was a younger son he did not inherit the grand-ducal title. Furthermore, all titles of HM The Queen Beatrix (except for all those of marchioness and of lower rank)are based on Royal Decrees. The female line of succession in the Netherlands has, in history, given rise to some difficulties with titles. From the moment that it was decided that Her Royal Higness the late Juliana, Queen of the Netherlands would bear the titles of Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau and Duchess of Mecklenburg, the trend was set. Namely: the royal title of Prince(ss) of the Netherlands and of Orange-Nassau would, at all times, remain intact for the members of the Royal House. In subsequent generations (i.e. Juliana and Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld & Beatrix and Jhr. Claus von Amsberg it was made clear by the Royal Decrees about titular matters that although the Dutch royal titles would remain intact, the acquired titles through the male husbands (Henry, Duke of Mecklenburg, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands & Jhr. Claus von Amsberg) would only be passed on to their children in their old form (i.e. only inheritable through the male lineage). Accordingly, HM The Queen Beatrix has no right whatsoever to the title of her grandfather Henry, Duke of Mecklenburg because she could not inherit it through her mother. Interestingly, the current Crown Prince: HRH the Prince of Orange, and his brothers have inherited their father's title of Jonkheer van Amsberg and they have, being male, children who inherited it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.46.70.240 (talk • contribs).

P.S.
If she were to adopt the title, it would come between Princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld and Marchioness of Veere and Flushing. Normally, it would be the second title after Queen of the Netherlands, but Orange, Nassau and Lippe-Biesterfeld are considered sovereign principalities (even though all three are in republics). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 's-Gravenhage (talk • contribs).

P.P.S.
Again, she could not adopt the title. Furthermore, Orange, Nassau and Lippe-Biesterfeld are not sovereign principalities anymore, even from a theoretical point of view.

Not Tidy
I think This page needs to have a tidy and some more photo's included and a clear layout, including a larger section on her Silver Jubilee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.144.104 (talk • contribs).

Brought in Picture
I brought in this picture from Prince Claus page, please move to a more suitable section of this page if you want i felt that this page was lacking images. Right Honrable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.86.248 (talk • contribs).

Have seen this before on this page.[[Image:Beatrix_at_Wedding.jpg|right|thumb|1|1e|300px|Queen Beatrix]-is it ok for it to be displayed on the page again? [[Right Honrable]] —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:49, 10 June 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

upcoming/recent events
I deleted these two sections. "Recent events" had only one event listed, while the Queen 'has' a very large number of notable events. Upcoming events doesn't really belong in a encyclopedia (at least, not the kind of event that was posted.. if it was something big it might have been notable). -- Mystman666 (Talk) 20:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed a hack
I restored the name and link of Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld as the father of Queen Beatrix. It had been replaced by the name of and link to one "Remco Katz". Lokimaros 03:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Large portions of the text in this article appear to have been lifted from the official site of The Dutch Royal House. Was prior permission obtained for this, if necessary? Indeed, IS it necessary? For example:

"In Canada, Princess Beatrix attended nursery and primary school. On her return to the Netherlands, she continued her primary education at The Workshop (De Werkplaats), Kees Boeke's progressive school in Bilthoven. In April 1950, Princess Beatrix entered the Incrementum, part of Baarnsch Lyceum, where she passed her school-leaving examinations in arts subjects and classics in 1956." is copied from http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/english/content.jsp?objectid=13164.

''Paintings, historical artifacts and jewellery belonging to the House of Orange are usually bound up with the performance of royal duties and have a certain cultural value. This property has been placed in the hands of trusts: the House of Orange-Nassau Archives Trust and the House of Orange-Nassau Historic Collections Trust. Part of the collection is on permanent loan to Het Loo Palace Museum in Apeldoorn and the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.'' is from http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/english/content.jsp?objectid=13343

These are examples only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jammy simpson (talk • contribs).

Daggers
Is there any particular reason why there are typographical daggers before the names of some of the Queen's relations? There doesn't seem to be a corresponding footnote, and it's unusual to put them before something, anyhow.&mdash;Kbolino 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be indicating that they're dead. (Usually "†" is used before a death date, using "†" with a name and no date is a little peculiar.) - Nunh-huh 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering this same thing. There's no explanation or cross-reference (:-P) and so their presence is even more useless than they might otherwise be; usually a monarch only ascends after the preceeding throwback has died. --Belg4mit 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not true in her case, (her mother being alive when she became queen, though dead now) and they mark others, who weren't monarchs, as well. - Nunh-huh 13:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Source?
I'm not saying this passage is wrong at all, I just want to find a source about it for my own research. "Beatrix is rarely quoted directly in the press, since the government information service (Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst) makes it a condition of interviews that she may not be quoted. This rule was introduced shortly after her inauguration, reportedly to protect her from political complications that may arise from "off-the-cuff" remarks. It does not apply to her son Prince Willem-Alexander."

This intrigues me, especially when considering her high-profile membership to the Bilderberg group. Speaking of which, I'm sure someone could dig up guest lists to prove that she is as I said.--Shink X 02:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg
Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This bot seems to be malfunctioning because there IS a FU rationale with the image. The bot's talk page has many mentions of it incorrectly tagging FU images so I think this is another case. Someone else has already reverted the bot's edits to the image. Rpvdk 07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bleached
Recently there was a picture of some 35 years ago in a paper and the woman on it was darkhaired. On nowadays pictures she is always light blond. In case somebody knows, when the bleaching started, and what exactly the natural haircolor is (brown or black) let him/her share this information with the readers of this encyclopedia, who in many cases are not aware of this developement. James Blond (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HM De Koningin.jpg
Image:HM De Koningin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection Requested
I've requested for this page to be temporarily protected until the user vandalizing it has calmed down. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tidying up
I've embarked on tidying up the page, adding references, removing plagiarism, etc. Unfortunately I possess no books discussing Her Majesty, and am thus relying on the official website for references. I would very much appreciate people who do have books (or access to other materials) assisting in this endeavour. Prince of Canadat 03:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Member of The Bilderberg Group
A few weeks ago there was someone who placed a link to the list of the Bildeberg conference in 2004 on wikipedia. He or she posted this link on all of 2004's Bildeberg conference visitors' pages on wikipedia. Strangely all of the links were removed. I really wonder why this is. All that was placed was a link to a place the person has actually been. Anybody knows why it was removed? Because I thought that Wikipedia was free as long as people posted things that are true and this was the case I think. I was waiting some time for some information of the Bildeberg group and am really sad the wasn't even a discussion about the post. Only abrupt removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justasking88 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well lets take a look at the edits that were added.
 * Queen Beatrix: Bilderberg Conference 2004
 * Bilderberg Group
 * So we have an internal link that wasn't done right, and a link that offers no usable content, just an in passing mention and some ramblings and conspiracy theories about the group as a whole. Then lets factor in how that link, and others of the same ilk were spammed all through a bunch of wikipedia articles by a newly created account; and as a bonus a link to the hotel website hosting a group meeting Now lets consider that a new newly created account wonders why the links were removed.
 * So the links were removed (and I was one of the people that removed them) because they smelt like spam and the site they promoted is not a reliable source. --Blowdart | talk 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand two things you say. First the "spamming" part. Spamming is usually something somebody does to get profit from it. I can't think of any profit this person would get from posting 2 links on some pages. The "bunch of wikipedia articles" you mention are all linked to eachother in this subject. I also don't understand your argument of the newly created account. I created this account to be more 'serious', to show I'm not just playing around, to show I just want to have some questions awnsered in this subject in a serious way. If one is not trusted when he or she has a new account, that would mean Wikipedia is a lot less "free" then it claimes and that newbies are less trusted in what they have to contribute in wikipedia. Is that fair?  --Justasking88 | talk 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I somehow have the feeling I've hit a weak spot since you're usually so quick in responding... Is there a problem? --Justasking88 | talk 16:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment below had already said what I feel; a conspiracy site simply isn't a reliable source --Blowdart | talk 15:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. But that is not what I asked. I want an answer to my question about your other arguments: the new account and the "spamming". You said those things were a reason to remove the contributions as well. I don't understand this and I want to know why you use these things as arguments... Because they contradict the thing Wikipedia claims to be. --Justasking88 | talk 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any user adding the precise same link to multiple articles looks like a spam vandal. Any user who is brand new doing that looks even more like a spam vandal. Any user who is doing that with links to a conspiracy site looks even more like a spam vandal. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. If we're wrong, sorry. Your link still fails the test of being a reliable source, though. Prince of Canadat 16:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bildeberg conference

 * Please read Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and verifiability, then find sources which meet the criteria, and of course the information can be included. Prince of Canadat 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Gustav Vasa
I don't see the use of inserting this genealogical lineage: it is irrelevant in this biographical entry. I deleted it. 23.27, 3 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.102.79 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal Wealth
This section enters into a lot of details of annual expenditure but brings an important information that should be developed further as it helps one to make it own understanding of the person described. It states that the personal Personal wealth of Queen Beatrix is estimated to exceed $5.5 billion but doesn't cite the source (altough there was a source for the 2005 data) nor it develops the discussion on what constitutes such a wealth. It goes on mentioning that the royal palaces are dutch properties what makes it more crucial to offer an explanation. If anyone has a good source for this information, it could easily replace the rest of the section and still bring more value to it. Faltausername (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)faltausername 06/05/2009 05:25 (GMT)

Fair use Review for File:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg
The image of Beatrix and Claus together is up for fair use review at. Editors, please give your views. Rpvdk (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Descent
I removed the section on patrilineal descent. Queen Beatrix is notable because of her position and who her mother was, not because of her father or her patrilineal line. That section was irrelevant and non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is notable and relevant; I've put it back. Mvd--[[User:CSvBibra|CSvBibra (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)leeuw]] (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What a great argument, not. Queen Beatrix's notability comes from her mother's side. If you want to show her descent, show her descent through her mother, grandmother, and great-grandfather, not through her insignificant father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw, only two people in that entire patrilineal descent are even notable enough to have their own wikipages. One of them is only notable because he married Queen Juliana and fathered Queen Beatrix. That should be your big clue that the patrinlineal line for Beatrix isn't notable. In contrast, a line of descent that shows the rulers of the Netherlands from whom Beatrix is descended would be a line of wikilinks to people notable in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The patrilineal descent is still notable and, what's more important, interesting. Therefore it should be in an article on Queen Beatrix. Mvdleeuw (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is it notable? A better use of the space would be showing her royal descent, through her mother, grandmother, great-grandfather, onwards. Nobody could argue that her paternal line is more important than the mixed-sex royal line that put her on the throne, yet the former is on her page and the latter is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Her paternal line is triviaTrivia_sections. Some might be interested in a list of her pets, who were equally unimportant in getting her on the throne. Or what about her dress designers or schoolteachers? Just because some find it interesting doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to be cluttered with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently you seem very keen on removing it while I'm very keen on keeping it. I've put it back for now, and ask you to stop removing it until other people have given their views as well. That seems better than keeping on playing "Yes it is!" "No, it isn't!". Mvdleeuw (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't consider it vital to the article, I prefer it in the article and was surprised when it was originally deleted. Historically, in the world of royal families, paternal line descent is a big deal.--CSvBibra (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the patrilineal descent is unnecessary. First of all, the Queen Beatrix derives her right to rule from the Dutch Constitution, which stipulates that only descendants of King William I (who became king in 1815) can be in line to the throne. King William I became king because of his membership of the House of Orange-Nassau. Since the Dutch Revolt against Spain (1566-1648), this dynasty played a major role in the Dutch Republic and, subsequently, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Just because Queen Beatrix had a father from the House of Lippe-Biesterfeld does not mean that suddenly this line of descent becomes more important that her ancestry of the Orange-Nassaus. 'Historically, in the world of royal families, paternal line descent is a big deal' is an inaccurate statement. The Dutch constitution is clear: the eldest child of the king or queen regnant inherits the throne, regardless of his or her sex. A second argument against the idea that a patrilineal line of descent is noteworthy is that it totally neglects the importance of women in royal families and the significance of rulers who were without issue. They are never mentioned in patrineal lines of descent whereas sovereign, royal and dynastic power often derives, or at least tranfers, from childless or female monarchs. Take for example the transfer of power from Elizabeth I to James VI & I (1603), the cession of the Low Countries to Archduchess Isabella (1598), the succession to the throne by Wilhelmina after her father's death in 1890 (instead of succession by a German prince), etc. Frankly, the patrineal line of descent is irrelevant as it denies the role of women in history and gives undue importance to historical persons simply because they are the forebears in the male line of the Dutch queen. I will the delete the patrilineal line of descent by 1 September if no valid reason is given as to why we ought to retain it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.154.220 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 141.157.188.173 and others, the the section on patrilineal descent is not interesting and not notable. Queen Beatrix is indeed notable because of her position and who her mother was. This kind of information is cluttering the site and should be omitted according Wikipedia guideline WP:TRIV. Furthermore, there is already a section "Ancestors of Beatrix of the Netherlands", maybe this one can be expanded? Anyway, I have removed the "section on patrilineal descent", it is not relevant, overdone since there is already a section ancestors, and annoying since it is cluttering. Diodecimus (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

list of titles
I count fifty titles in that section, but the picture shows 72 shields .... —Tamfang (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)