View previous topic | View next topic

Monarchy, Dutch

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Stefan Linnemann
967476.  Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:00 pm Reply with quote

How many reigning Queens have the Netherlands had (as head of state)?

Someone: 3, 4 if you count Queen-Regent Emma. ***claxon***

Constitutionally the Netherlands have a King as head of State. So, although 123 years out of 200 we've had queens, they were King. In a constitutional sense.

Who is crown prince?

Claxon anything but noone. The heir apparent is not crown prince, but prince or princess of Orange.

Who was the last Prince of Orange to be crowned King?

Correct answer: Stadtholder Prince WIllem III of Orange, who was crowned King in England, Scotland and Ireland. In the Netherlands the King is not crowned, as that is a religious ceremony, but invested, which is a purely constitutional ceremony.

No Dutch monarch has actually ever worn the crown, it's too large to wear at that, it would drop down to the shoulders. The crown, sceptre and state apple are symbolic only, as you will be able to see on April 30.

 
CharliesDragon
995887.  Sun May 12, 2013 3:37 pm Reply with quote

That... that is very in the spirit of QI, although I'm not quite sure what's going on...

A related question, is it the same in the British monarchy? I've for a while thought there should be a difference between the title of a ruling female and the wife of a king. Would Ruling Queen be an option? Female King? I know "Her Majesty" is part of her title, but here we use that for the wife of the king, too, and some other royalty. Wait, you used the term Queen-Regent in your post, I think that's fitting.

I watched the ceremony, and it was interesting, despite being slow-moving and not subtitled, so my understanding of what was going on was limited.
However, when they talked about it on the news later one channel called him King Willem, another King Wilhelm. We have a habit of changing names, though, since Pope Francois is known as Frans here, and apperently Francis to the English speaking world... To me it's completely illogical and just makes it a lot harder to keep track of people.

 
Stefan Linnemann
996275.  Tue May 14, 2013 5:43 am Reply with quote

CharliesDragon wrote:
That... that is very in the spirit of QI, although I'm not quite sure what's going on...

However, when they talked about it on the news later one channel called him King Willem, another King Wilhelm. We have a habit of changing names, though, since Pope Francois is known as Frans here, and apperently Francis to the English speaking world... To me it's completely illogical and just makes it a lot harder to keep track of people.


Actually, he's not[ another King Willem (Wilhelm), he's chosen his full first name as his regnal name, also because he's been "Alex" all his life for short. So it's King WIllem Alexander., to be the first of that name if there is ever a repeat performance. As he said: "I'm not a number. WIllem IV walks around in the fields between the cows."

Stefan.

 
Sadurian Mike
996278.  Tue May 14, 2013 5:52 am Reply with quote

CharliesDragon wrote:
A related question, is it the same in the British monarchy? I've for a while thought there should be a difference between the title of a ruling female and the wife of a king. Would Ruling Queen be an option? Female King? I know "Her Majesty" is part of her title, but here we use that for the wife of the king, too, and some other royalty. Wait, you used the term Queen-Regent in your post, I think that's fitting.

Monarch is the usual term.

However, we do use the term queen regnant for a queen who rules in their own right, as opposed to a queen consort who is the wife of the ruling king. You also have queen mother (mother to the monarch) and queen dowager (widow of the former monarch).

Old queens are an entirely different kettle of fish.

 
'yorz
996305.  Tue May 14, 2013 7:43 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
However, we do use the term queen regnant for a queen who rules in their own right, as opposed to a queen consort who is the wife of the ruling king.

That just hurts the retina. Down with that sort of thing!

 
'yorz
996306.  Tue May 14, 2013 7:51 am Reply with quote

Apart from that - in Dutch, Koningin-Regentes is a title as far as I know only worn by Koningin Emma (van Waldeck Pyrmont), the widow of Koning Willem III, and the mother of Prinses Wilhelmina. When Willem III died on 23 November 1890, Emma became regent for her under-aged daughter, Wilhelmina, the late king's only surviving child. She would remain Queen Regent until Wilhelmina's eighteenth birthday on 31 August 1898. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which could not be inherited by a woman at that time, passed to their distant cousin Adolf, Duke of Nassau (who was also Queen Emma's maternal uncle).

 
CharliesDragon
996406.  Tue May 14, 2013 4:57 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
Sadurian Mike wrote:
However, we do use the term queen regnant for a queen who rules in their own right, as opposed to a queen consort who is the wife of the ruling king.

That just hurts the retina. Down with that sort of thing!


I'm praying there's some sort of grammatical error I don't catch and you're not suggesting, even jokingly, that queens/women should not rule.

Other than that, very informal and good thread, although I would probably understand more if I looked up some of the names. Don't bother going into a lengthy explanation for my sake, though, I understand the basic concepts.

 
'yorz
996414.  Tue May 14, 2013 5:21 pm Reply with quote

OK - I'll spell it out...

Quote:
a queen [female, in this instance] who rules in their [dislodged gender] own right.

Common sense should have prevailed:
a queen who rules in her own right

 
CharliesDragon
996416.  Tue May 14, 2013 5:34 pm Reply with quote

Gotcha. I have a habit of assuming I'm the one who's wrong if someone uses grammar I'm not familiar with or seems strange to me. I once got very frustrated when someone tried to tell me "everyone" is treated as singular grammar-wise, because to me "everyone" means "all, the whole bunch, a whole lot of people," and that's about as far from "one person" as you can get. Of course, grammar doesn't have to reflect the property of the word, as we treat "book" as a female word in my native language. I'm pretty sure books aren't able to reproduce either way, and having all of them be female would make it troublesome even if they could.

Quote:
... grammatical error I don't catch...


That should have said "didn't". See why I don't trust my own grasp on grammar?

 
'yorz
996419.  Tue May 14, 2013 5:39 pm Reply with quote

I guess everyone got lumped together over time (SUZE!), and that it relates to 'each and every one', which is singular. As it is in my mother tongue as well.

 
Spud McLaren
996420.  Tue May 14, 2013 5:41 pm Reply with quote

CharliesDragon wrote:
... we treat "book" as a female word in my native language.
Just as a matter of interest, what is your native language? Your English doesn't come across as being a second language...

 
suze
996437.  Tue May 14, 2013 6:31 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
I guess everyone got lumped together over time (SUZE!), and that it relates to 'each and every one', which is singular. As it is in my mother tongue as well.


Yea, that's about right.

Grammar scholars are very sure that words like everyone (also somebody, no one, anybody, and similar cases) are singular. Accordingly, they take a singular verb - so everyone is happy not everyone are happy.

Buuuuttt ... it is well attested that in modern usage, these words usually take a plural pronoun. Both Robert Burchfield (in Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edn, 2003)) and Dr Bryan Garner (Garner's Modern American Usage, 2003) note this and do not seek to identify it as wrong.

So anyone who wants to board the bus must show their ticket. Purists would prefer his ticket, but it's less common and few continue to insist on it.

 
Stefan Linnemann
996672.  Wed May 15, 2013 1:55 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
'yorz wrote:
I guess everyone got lumped together over time (SUZE!), and that it relates to 'each and every one', which is singular. As it is in my mother tongue as well.



So anyone who wants to board the bus must show their ticket. Purists would prefer his ticket, but it's less common and few continue to insist on it.


In the case of anyone I feel a singular, and the theirs would to me be the modern use of avoiding his or hers. But I'm only a language user, not even an amateur scholar on the subject.

Stefan.

 
CharliesDragon
996684.  Wed May 15, 2013 2:47 pm Reply with quote

Edited/deleted because I want to stay anonymous after all.


Last edited by CharliesDragon on Wed May 15, 2013 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
'yorz
996687.  Wed May 15, 2013 3:02 pm Reply with quote

You're a push-over! Should have resisted for a while longer. ;-p

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group