The Princess of Orange, Pss Alexia and Pss Ariane, News Part 2 (Feb 2019 -Dec 2021)

[Skippy]

I'm surprised they allowed Amalia and her friends to use their phones if it was meant to be an educational visit for her role as future queen. It does seem in rather poor taste, but it's not just a generational thing, British PM Boris Johnson has been found guilty of doing the same.

*This*! This is what I meant in shortened form, but as I am one of details I seem to lack that capability.
Thank you, HereditaryPrincess.

Complete nonsense. This is the general attitude of our society, not just teenagers and let me just say here that teenagers of this era care a whole lot more about our society and planet than the boomers all combined together.

She is sixteen and if she is doing this out of her own free will, kudos to her. There is nothing wrong with a teenager looking at something on someone's phone for a couple of seconds. She is still a kid.

Talk about an unexpected arrow towards me...

It's *not* complete nonsense. What you say about it being the general attitude of our society, I believe I said just that between parentheses. It's even in the part that you bolded....
And the use of the word "boomers" is disparaging - as if they are less than today's teenagers.

"For a couple of seconds", we don't know that. We only saw a few seconds of film. Most teenagers *and* others (parents and others) are glued to their phone for longer than minutes. In general I believe that the majority of today's society has an unhealthy connection to their phone.

 

[Empress Merel]

It's not an arrow at you but bolded it because this is what used against Millenials and Generation Z and someone was trying it. I'm just not here for people having a dig at a 16 year old girl, or teenagers in general, for looking at their phone and weaponising it against them.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Well; I'm an older Gen-Z (who does like to "ok boomer" people when needed ) and still found it surprising that Amalia and her friends were allowed to look at their phones during the meetings especially if this was meant to be a visit of personal interest. I actually find that parents and people of older generations who use mobiles tend to be worse "offenders" of using their phone when they're meant to be in a professional situation I work in a shop and don't use my phone when there are customers shopping, only when they're gone and I've got absolutely nothing else to do I browse my phone. It just seems like a common courtesy to keep phones away or at least appear interested at such an event where one is in a professional situation. I'd expect this of someone double or even triple of Amalia's age too.

 

[Lee-Z]

Afaik it wasn't an official visit to a meeting.. these sessions are open for the public to attend, so you and I could also go there and sit in the stands to watch the goings on.
The difference being ofcourse is that when I would go there, noone would take a picture of me

So it's a public outing to a session that is a regular governmemt meeting, so I'm sure has some dull moments inbetween. When my class once visited (in a different millenium ) we'd chitchat amongst ourselves and show eachother the memorabilia we bought in those dull moments, but if mobile phones had been invented then, i bet we would have looked at them ?

 

[Somebody]

Well; I'm an older Gen-Z (who does like to "ok boomer" people when needed ) and still found it surprising that Amalia and her friends were allowed to look at their phones during the meetings especially if this was meant to be a visit of personal interest. I actually find that parents and people of older generations who use mobiles tend to be worse "offenders" of using their phone when they're meant to be in a professional situation I work in a shop and don't use my phone when there are customers shopping, only when they're gone and I've got absolutely nothing else to do I browse my phone. It just seems like a common courtesy to keep phones away or at least appear interested at such an event where one is in a professional situation. I'd expect this of someone double or even triple of Amalia's age too.

Who was supposed to forbid Amalia and her friend from looking at their phones? (I only saw her friend's phone, are there any phones of Amalia even looking at her own phone?) And do the same rules apply to anyone attending out of interest or just curiosity? Who is supposed to monitor each and everyone of the general public and what kind of sanctions (by whom) should be applied if they don't behave as expected?

They were just general members of the public who can do as they please as long as they don't interrupt whatever is going on downstairs in the Second Chamber (Parliament). There is no obligation for anyone attending to pay full attention to even the dullest moments (discussing what will be discussed when in this case). The fact that they chose to attend in itself is laudable imo; and as it is a purely private visit, it cannot be compared to any official or professional role.

So, the comparison between someone at work taking care of customers and the general public visiting parliament is invalid imo. Unless, in your shop the employees actively tell anyone coming in that they have to pay full attention to shopping and are not allowed to chat among each other or look at their phones (and even in that case: someone shopping is taking a more active part in the activity than someone just looking on while others are shopping).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's not an arrow at you but bolded it because this is what used against Millenials and Generation Z and someone was trying it. I'm just not here for people having a dig at a 16 year old girl, or teenagers in general, for looking at their phone and weaponising it against them.

The claim that "(and not only teenage...)" is a more "weaponised" statement than "teenagers of this era care a whole lot more about our society and planet than the boomers all combined together" is rather hard to support.

 

[Marengo]

We recently saw some ministers looking at their own phones during an actual debate. Mrs. Karib - the chairwoman- even confiquated a phone of a parliamentarian to make a point. So a teenage girl can be forgiven checking her friends phone while the house was discussing the agenda. Many members of parliament will have been doing the same. I think it is great she is showing interest by going to parliament in her free time.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Note that the Princess herself was not seen with a phone. She was there with two classmates. Only one of this trio had a mobile in hand and frequently showed the two other classmate what was going on her phone. That is all.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

The Princess of Orange, Princesses Alexia and Ariane, News Part 2 (Feb 2019 -present)

Who was supposed to forbid Amalia and her friend from looking at their phones? (I only saw her friend's phone, are there any phones of Amalia even looking at her own phone?) And do the same rules apply to anyone attending out of interest or just curiosity? Who is supposed to monitor each and everyone of the general public and what kind of sanctions (by whom) should be applied if they don't behave as expected?



They were just general members of the public who can do as they please as long as they don't interrupt whatever is going on downstairs in the Second Chamber (Parliament). There is no obligation for anyone attending to pay full attention to even the dullest moments (discussing what will be discussed when in this case). The fact that they chose to attend in itself is laudable imo; and as it is a purely private visit, it cannot be compared to any official or professional role.



So, the comparison between someone at work taking care of customers and the general public visiting parliament is invalid imo. Unless, in your shop the employees actively tell anyone coming in that they have to pay full attention to shopping and are not allowed to chat among each other or look at their phones (and even in that case: someone shopping is taking a more active part in the activity than someone just looking on while others are shopping).

Ouch, there’s no need to be so harsh or tell me my opinion isn’t valid. It’s a public discussion forum, so we are all allowed to share our opinions and you will disagree with them. Doesn’t mean they’re not valid.

Nobody needs to forbid Amalia and her friends from using their phone, I guess my point was that it should just be natural when in such a situation. I even said that I appreciate it can be long and boring, so I totally get that, but to me it just didn’t seem totally professional. I would say the same about anyone using their phone in such an event. Amalia isn’t a general member of the public, she is the future queen so certain things are expected of her that won’t be expected of her friends sitting next to her. Yes, I’m also aware that Amalia herself wasn’t using the phone and no, I’m not being too harsh or critical. I don’t normally like criticising minors, but I’ve seen a lot of phone usage in Parliament (here in the UK too from very senior members of cabinet) and as you can tell it’s something that doesn’t sit well with me personally. And that’s from anyone of any age.

That’s all. No need to be so up in arms. I think it’s fantastic that Amalia shows interest in parliament and wants to see what her future role will bring her, but I still stand by my opinion which I won’t repeat again because it’ll be tiring. I didn’t want for this to blow up or be unfairly critiqued. You can disagree with me, fine, but don’t tell me my contributions aren’t valid, because that’s not fair. I didn’t intend to criticise Amalia herself at all, it was more the action of using the phone that bothered me rather than the individuals themselves. It would’ve been the same if Maxima or even Beatrix had done this. If I’d known it would’ve caused this much of a fuss, I wouldn’t have commented in the first place!

 

[SLV]

Note that the Princess herself was not seen with a phone. She was there with two classmates. Only one of this trio had a mobile in hand and frequently showed the two other classmate what was going on her phone. That is all.

And perhaps the content of the phone she showed actually had something to do with the visit.

 

[Somebody]

Ouch, there’s no need to be so harsh or tell me my opinion isn’t valid. It’s a public discussion forum, so we are all allowed to share our opinions and you will disagree with them. Doesn’t mean they’re not valid.

Nobody needs to forbid Amalia and her friends from using their phone, I guess my point was that it should just be natural when in such a situation. I even said that I appreciate it can be long and boring, so I totally get that, but to me it just didn’t seem totally professional. I would say the same about anyone using their phone in such an event. Amalia isn’t a general member of the public, she is the future queen so certain things are expected of her that won’t be expected of her friends sitting next to her. Yes, I’m also aware that Amalia herself wasn’t using the phone and no, I’m not being too harsh or critical. I don’t normally like criticising minors, but I’ve seen a lot of phone usage in Parliament (here in the UK too from very senior members of cabinet) and as you can tell it’s something that doesn’t sit well with me personally. And that’s from anyone of any age.

That’s all. No need to be so up in arms. I think it’s fantastic that Amalia shows interest in parliament and wants to see what her future role will bring her, but I still stand by my opinion which I won’t repeat again because it’ll be tiring. I didn’t want for this to blow up or be unfairly critiqued. You can disagree with me, fine, but don’t tell me my contributions aren’t valid, because that’s not fair. I didn’t intend to criticise Amalia herself at all, it was more the action of using the phone that bothered me rather than the individuals themselves. It would’ve been the same if Maxima or even Beatrix had done this. If I’d known it would’ve caused this much of a fuss, I wouldn’t have commented in the first place!

You are fully entitled to your opinion; I just stated that in my opinion (=imo) your comparison between someone at work vs someone being present somewhere is invalid.

Nonetheless, I am glad to read that you came around a little and state that Amalia should not be forbidden from using her phone; so, that means that she should be allowed to do so if she wishes to... I just hope that Amalia feels free to keep coming; as it seems all of us are equally impressed (and would encourage her) that she is coming out of personal interest (and partly in preparation for her future role).

The point I tried to make that seemed not to come across: You keep comparing Amalia's behavior to those that actively have a role to play in parliament (such as cabinet members - who indeed check their phones a lot as well; partly because their staff members might be sending them relevant information I'd assume); while she is only an 'onlooker'. I don't think that is a fair comparison - but of course you may think differently.

Let me try to explain it with an example that many people might be familiar with. Lots of people attend sports games. Of course, the players (and coaches etc) are supposed to be fully concentrated all the time. It's their job to do the best they can to get the best results. This same expectation is not put upon the spectators. The fans will most likely pay a lot of attention on critical moments but might talk to their neighbors or look at their phone at other times; and that's totally fine. They do not have an official role to play.

And in this case, the game is even put on 'for the spectators to enjoy'. In the case of Parliament they are just going about their own business and members of the general public are allowed to watch but are not supposed to interfere in any way nor are they debating because of those present at the 'public gallery'. They would do so, if it were full or empty.

Continuing the analogy, if spectators would be seated in places of honor they might be slightly more aware of the cameras being focused on them and will adjust their behavior accordingly (I am quite sure Amalia lives a life of 'adjustments' just because of her position); but as the 'public gallery' doesn't have such a thing and the final row surely would not be that place for 'further adjustments'. Imo it is hard to argue that anyone seated on the public gallery should be on 'their best behavior' all the time; they should behave 'decent' and should not disturb what's going in 'downstairs', that's all.

I think, I'll leave it at that. Feel free to respond but if I don't, it's not because you don't make interesting points but mainly because I don't want to end up in a back-and-forth.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

You are fully entitled to your opinion; I just stated that in my opinion (=imo) your comparison between someone at work vs someone being present somewhere is invalid.

Nonetheless, I am glad to read that you came around a little and state that Amalia should not be forbidden from using her phone; so, that means that she should be allowed to do so if she wishes to... I just hope that Amalia feels free to keep coming; as it seems all of us are equally impressed (and would encourage her) that she is coming out of personal interest (and partly in preparation for her future role).

The point I tried to make that seemed not to come across: You keep comparing Amalia's behavior to those that actively have a role to play in parliament (such as cabinet members - who indeed check their phones a lot as well; partly because their staff members might be sending them relevant information I'd assume); while she is only an 'onlooker'. I don't think that is a fair comparison - but of course you may think differently.

Let me try to explain it with an example that many people might be familiar with. Lots of people attend sports games. Of course, the players (and coaches etc) are supposed to be fully concentrated all the time. It's their job to do the best they can to get the best results. This same expectation is not put upon the spectators. The fans will most likely pay a lot of attention on critical moments but might talk to their neighbors or look at their phone at other times; and that's totally fine. They do not have an official role to play.

And in this case, the game is even put on 'for the spectators to enjoy'. In the case of Parliament they are just going about their own business and members of the general public are allowed to watch but are not supposed to interfere in any way nor are they debating because of those present at the 'public gallery'. They would do so, if it were full or empty.

Continuing the analogy, if spectators would be seated in places of honor they might be slightly more aware of the cameras being focused on them and will adjust their behavior accordingly (I am quite sure Amalia lives a life of 'adjustments' just because of her position); but as the 'public gallery' doesn't have such a thing and the final row surely would not be that place for 'further adjustments'. Imo it is hard to argue that anyone seated on the public gallery should be on 'their best behavior' all the time; they should behave 'decent' and should not disturb what's going in 'downstairs', that's all.

I think, I'll leave it at that. Feel free to respond but if I don't, it's not because you don't make interesting points but mainly because I don't want to end up in a back-and-forth.

I don't want to carry on with this but I will add it seems you misunderstood my concerns about your usage of the word "invalid". All opinions are valid because they aren't right or wrong, so to say otherwise is totally dismissing it. My point was that you're free to disagree with me, but please don't invalidate my opinion. You could've just said that it doesn't make sense, or isn't comparable, or whatever. I haven't invalidated your opinion so there's not a need to do so to mine.

 

[Lee-Z]

I'm starting to understand why K.W-A and Q.Maxima want to keep their daughters out of the media until they're adults

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I'm starting to understand why K.W-A and Q.Maxima want to keep their daughters out of the media until they're adults

I really didn't mean to cause such a disruption to the thread. I merely stated my opinion, which is clearly unpopular but there's no need to belittle me. I'll bow out now. It seems that the forums have become much more sensitive than they used to be.

So this is over and done with and that nobody hates me; can I please state that I'm not criticising Amalia? For the thousandth time. It's the action itself, which details I won't go into again for fear of my head exploding.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In media there is sometimes nagging about the invisibility of the three princesses, compared to Princess Estelle, Princess Leonor or Princess Elisabeth.


But in the annual major poll on the monarchy by NOS (the "Dutch BBC") more than 70% agreed with the policy of the King and Queen to shield their daughters as much as possible, to let them enjoy life in privacy.

 

[Somebody]

A 31 year old man is charged with threatening to rape the princess of Orange and kill her friend Brent. He posted messages and images to that end on Instagram in January; based on the time and the fact that not only the princess but also her friend was threatened, I wonder whether it is somehow related to her appearance in Parliament with said (male) friend. The judge ordered a mental evaluation of the man by the Pieter Baan Center - as was requested by the prosecutor.

 

[Marengo]

Poor girl & friend. The RF is apparently a magnet for a lot of deranged lunatics, as we saw during Queen's day in Apeldoorn and at other events. A pity that Amalia has to experience it at such a young age already.

 

[Muhler]

It is, I'm sure, something that happens more often than we think.
Threats from deranged persons must come in regularly, we are simply not told in order not to encourage others to do the same, because over the next few weeks quite a few will threaten to do something similar.

 

[An Ard Ri]

What a truly depraved and sick individual and what a terrible ordeal for the Princess and her friend and parents.

 

[Marengo]

Apparently it is a 31 y/o ex-soldier from Zwolle. He was stupid enough not to send the messages to the princess but to a fan-account on instagram, thinking it was the princess herself. The threats were made somehwere between January 9th and 14th of this year.

The man - known as Wouter G. - was homeless for a few years. His lawyer claims that mr G. did not mean to do harm, he deleted the messages an hour after they were posted and hoped that nobody had seen them. Apparently at the time he had to laugh about what he did, 'nobody will believe this' he wrote in his diary. He wrote the messages as he felt frustrated with a personal relationship. He took a few beers he decided to 'scare' princess Amalia.

When the judge announced that mr. G. would be going to the Pieter Baan centrum - a forensic psychiatric observation clinic for criminals - Wouter G. cheered. The judge replied sarcastically: 'I am happy that you are so cheerful about it'.

Earlier during the hearing G. said that he did not see the need for him to go to the clinic, neither did he feel like going there. He said he would find it ridiculous but he would cooperate if the virdict would be so.

The case will be continued on July 23rd.

Source: Marouscha van de Groep

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Office of the Public Prosector in the Netherlands is quite active on this sort of insults and threats, not only to members of the Royal House, but also to ministers, mayors, police officers, anyone in the public service.

For fellow forummers from Anglosaxon countries this maybe looks oppressive, but any Dutch citizen enjoys the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on the honour or reputation.

Because members of the Royal House, ministers, mayors, police officers, etc. are in the public service, it is not themselves in person to start a lawsuit, but the Public Prosecutor himself, exactly because it is the duty of the State to protect persons active in public service.

For an example, (verbally) assaulting someone in the public service is double the punishment for "normal" situations, exactly because a fireman, an ambulancier, a mayor, a clerk at the social service, a member of the Royal House are representing a public service, namely the State.

 

[Muhler]

As it should be. No one should have to endure deeply personal insults and more or less veiled threats just because they are public figures.

I think the additional punishment metered to some work-groups is quite common.
In DK it's called "embedsmand i funktion" I think it's more clear in German: "Beamter in Funktion."
Don't know the English expression: Civil servant on duty?

What I think is good about the Dutch system is that it's not up to the individual offended (say a politician) but up to another authority as to whether the police should be involved or not.
It can be mentally draining and time consuming for the individual politician to report something to the police. Not to mention facing the allegations about being thin-skinned and sometimes being accused of being a hypocrite as well.

I wish we had that system to shield out politicians as well here in DK.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Yikes, I wouldn't like to live in some people's heads. I can't think why anyone would want to send a death threat to another person, let alone a minor. And the fact that the person sent the messages via a public platform such as Instagram is even more pathetic - you'd think if you wanted to do such a thing you'd keep yourself anonymous.
I hope that the situation will be resolved soon and that Amalia and especially her friends - as they're private citizens - will be protected from this.

 

[carlota]

apparently a friend of alexia published on tiktok a video of alexia and her friends rapping to the song In the party by Flo Milli, which has as the article describes it 'non princessy language'.

it is unknown if it was alexia who requested the video to be taken down, or the service of communications of the palace. apparently this happened in the past when other videos of alexia had to be taken down.

according to Marc van der Linden, WA and maxima are said to be strict with their daughters use of social media.


https://www.hola.com/realeza/casa_holanda/20200612170020/alexia-holanda-video-retirado/

 

[Muhler]

Of course they must be strict with their daughters, the public can as we know be easy to offend.

But is it funny when they pull a stunt like that once in a while.

 

[Somebody]

It seems Alexia, so far, is the 'wildest' (but still rather mild) of the three daughters; Amalia of course has a little less leeway as the future queen and Ariane is a bit younger.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Of course they must be strict with their daughters, the public can as we know be easy to offend.

But is it funny when they pull a stunt like that once in a while.

Haha, me too! It just reminds us that royal children have "regular" upbringings when it comes to things they like to do with their friends. Alexia has always been into social media, it would seem, and I'm sure she'll learn how to manage personal and public posts in the future. She's still only a teenager after all.

 

[Countessmeout]

Wild child? Tiktok videos is wild? Everyone from babies to grandmas have been making tiktok videos in this pandemic. And to all kinds of music.

I know some people have this 'Disney princess' vision of what a princess should be but this is the 21st century. And princess or not she is a teen. Hardly wild child activities. She isn't out partying or under age drinking or even dying her hair purple or a mowhawk.

If QEII can post an Instagram video with her grandson doing a mike drop, the teenage princess of the Netherlands can post a tiktok.

I sometimes cant stop laughing at the pearl clutching.

 

[Somebody]

Wild child? Tiktok videos is wild? Everyone from babies to grandmas have been making tiktok videos in this pandemic. And to all kinds of music.

I know some people have this 'Disney princess' vision of what a princess should be but this is the 21st century. And princess or not she is a teen. Hardly wild child activities. She isn't out partying or under age drinking or even dying her hair purple or a mowhawk.

If QEII can post an Instagram video with her grandson doing a mike drop, the teenage future queen of the Netherlands can post a tiktok.

I sometimes cant stop laughing at the pearl clutching.

Princess Alexia is NOT the future queen of the Netherlands. Her older sister is the future queen. And posting video's on Tiktok is not the only thing she's done. As Hereditary Princess pointed out princess Alexia is the one who is most into social media (and does die her hair); based on the way she presents herself so far she is slightly 'wilder' than her sisters (but as I said - very 'mild' and so, nothing to worry about). Not sure where you found the pearl clutching.

 

[Countessmeout]

Posting on social media and not having her natural color isn't even mildly wild ?

Sorry but when I see people worried about a wild streak (even if wild) that she will hopefully 'grow out of' over having Instagram and highlights, I picture my 88 year old grandmother clutching pearls and worried about the 'future of these kids today'.

All royals had their teen days. It just wasn't so public last generation.