Future of the Dutch Monarchy

[Gaudete]

I predict we'll be far more likely to see a restoration in the next decade than an abolition. And from the time I have spent in the Netherlands, I think I'd definitely put the Dutch at the very bottom of the list of nations eager to ditch their King!

 

[Biri]

No country gets nothing in becoming a Republic. The monarchy is much better. I think all monarchies are popular.

So why did Italians choose the republic in the referendum after the World War II?

 

[Blog Real]

So why did Italians choose the republic in the referendum after the World War II?

I don't know. But they didn't win anything with the Republic, in my opinion.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What I always find funny in these debates - what makes the public so sure they'll get to elect their head-of-state in a republic? I'm German and the public has absolutely no say in who our head-of-state is, even though we are a (federal) republic. We're getting our President basically dumped on our head by the whim of whoever can scramble a majority together.

So - a republic isn't a guarantee you get to actually vote for your head-of-state. Why change it then? From a monarchy, that is.

best wishes Michiru

The Germans have voted for the Bundestag. The Germans have voted for the Parliaments of the Bundesländer. These parliamentarians, assembled in the Bundesversammlung, vote for the Bundespräsident.

The Dutch find themselves with a head of state, whom happens to be born from a German-German Prinzessin (Beatrix, from a Zur Lippe-Biesterfeld & Von Mecklenburg-Schwerin union) and a German-German Junker (Claus, from a Von Amsberg & Von dem Bussche-Haddenhausen union).

In that perspective, the election of the German Bundespräsident is an example of democratic exellence: their Dutch neighbours have never been asked anything.

 

[Gaudete]

The Germans have voted for the Bundestag. The Germans have voted for the Parliaments of the Bundesländer. These parliamentarians, assembled in the Bundesversammlung, vote for the Bundespräsident.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the same German President would be elected if he relied on an ordinary public vote of course. From a UK perspective where the Speaker of the House of Commons is elected in the same way to the German President, I very much doubt Mr Bercow would be elected to the same office if it were upto the every day man on the street.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I believe that the new cabinet wants to abolish the referendum. So it will soon be impossible to have one about the monarchy. For most political parties it would be political suicide to actively pursue the abolishment of the monarchy at this point.

From left to right there are no parties that even passively want to abolish the monarchy. The -former Maoist- Socialist Party recently changed their position and now claim that:



The new extreme right party 'Forum for Democracy' has nothing about the monarchy on their website/programme. But considering they are in favour of direct democracy, directly chosen prime minister, mayors etc. it would be logical that they want their head of state to be chosen too. Geert Wilders and his henchmen seem to have stopped attacking the monarchy, I suppose his objections mainly related to the person of Beatrix.

Geert Wilders was even received by the King at Noordeinde Palace (picture) and was very complimentary afterwards in Twitter:

Geert Wilders ✔ @geertwilderspvv
Zojuist op bezoek geweest bij de Koning. Het was een aangenaam en openhartig gesprek. Veel respect voor hem! Ik had een fles Hongaarse palinka voor hem en Koningin Máxima meegenomen. Zal hopelijk goed smaken!

(Just recently visited the King. It was a pleasant and frank conversation. Lots of respect for him! I had brought a bottle of Hungarian palinka for him and Queen Máxima. Hopefully it will taste good!)

Also during the Investiture of the King Geert Wilders, as maverick and provoking he can be, subjected himself totally to the ceremonial and protocol, dressed in jacquet (picture). That was a surprise indeed. Since the accession of King Willem-Alexander the PVV has been completely silent about the monarchy.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

This doesn't necessarily mean that the same German President would be elected if he relied on an ordinary public vote of course. From a UK perspective where the Speaker of the House of Commons is elected in the same way to the German President, I very much doubt Mr Bercow would be elected to the same office if it were upto the every day man on the street.

That is true, but that is the same as in the United States where Secretary Clinton won the electoral vote but Mr Trump was elected President by the Electoral College. But no one will claim that Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton and all their predecessors were undemocratically elected: these are the rules for the election of a president: via the members of the Electoral College.

The German Bundespräsidenten all were elected according the rules for the election of that office. By the members of the Bundesversammlung. At least the democratically elected politicians, from the federation as well the states, together representing the German people, had a say.

I predict we'll be far more likely to see a restoration in the next decade than an abolition. And from the time I have spent in the Netherlands, I think I'd definitely put the Dutch at the very bottom of the list of nations eager to ditch their King!

I live in the Netherlands and I have never spontaneously heard any praise for the monarchy. Yes, individuals inside the royal family are well-liked: Máxima, the King, but there are also individuals inside the royal family a lot lesser liked: Prince Bernhard with his 590 real estate properties in the Netherlands (349 in Amsterdam alone).

The biggest mistake here is to take the individual popularity of a Máxima and translate it in popularity for the monarchy as an institution, as a form of state. I can assure you there is really a lot of nagging about the monarchy but in the "bucket list of the Dutch" the monarchy does not make the top of the "to do"-list. The Dutch more or less tolerate this expensive historic anomaly in their constitution.

 

[Gaudete]

In that way I imagine it's the same as in the UK. We don't go about shouting God Save the Queen but their popularity is there and we just have too much to do to really think about it. Then again, the alternative is enough to put anybody off asking about it too much anyway!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

For the moment the King and the Royal House are safe - for the moment.

The NOS (the Dutch equivalent of the BBC) made an analysis.

(Picture: the King and the Prime Ministers - both the same age - both Leyden University - both studied History)

With this coalition on the pluche, the King sits on velvet

How the flag really hangs for King Willem-Alexander after the elections and the formation of this new Cabinet, will soon become clear when the Chapter One of the State Budget ("The King") is on the parliamentary agenda.

Apart from the most important critic of the King in recent years (the left-liberal D66), the Cabinet with VVD (right-liberal), CDA and ChristenUnie (both Christian-Democrat parties) consists of loyal Orange supporters. It is not obvious that a Cabinet which cherishes national symbols such as the Wilhelmus and De Nachtwacht, will start tinkering with the monarchy.

Alexander Pechtold, the leader of D66, who always made pleas for an "austere and modern kingship" now is a leader of a party in the coalition and he has to take this into account. The King sits on velvet.

King Willem-Alexander also has little to fear from the opposition in the Second Chamber, provided that he remains constitutionally solid and can prevent (financial) scandals. The written preparation for the parliamentary reading of the Budget indicates this.

Orange pennant (picture)
The Second Chamber will not immediately provide the national flag that now hangs in the assembly hall with an orange pennant. But parties with a republican preference lack the required majority to advance, after the removal of the King from the formation of a new Cabinet, towards a strictly ceremonial monarchy.

Tax exemptions
Yet there is a catch. At the end of this month, the deferred report of a committee will be published, commissioned by the Cabinet, for archival research into an assumed secret tax deal concluded with the royal family in the 1970s. This assumed deal was meant as a compensation for taxes that the Orange-Nassaus would have to pay (for the first time) about their private assets.

It is conceivable that through this report the tax exemptions enjoyed by the Royal House will -again- be discussed. In the wake of this, the discussion can also flare up again about the height of the incomes the State pays to members of the Royal House

Time-consuming
The case concerns tax exemptions for King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima, Princess Beatrix and for Princess Amalia as soon as she turns 18. As members of the Royal House who are entitled to a State income, they do not have to pay tax on the income they receive from the State Treasury and also no tax on the parts of their assets that are important for the execution of the royal dignity.

In addition, King Willem-Alexander and Princess Amalia are also exempted from inheritance tax. Because this so-called "tax exemption" is anchored in constitutional article 40, it is difficult and time-consuming for Parliament to draw attention to it, because a two-thirds majority is required in two different Parliaments.

Populism
Even though it is difficult to change the tax exemptions of the Royal House, there is another way to achieve the same goal: a lower royal income. For a parliamentary majority, it is possible to reduce the annual payments to King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and Princess Beatrix. The amount of this is not regulated in the Constitution, but in the Financial Statute of the Royal House.

Last year Prime Minister Rutte got the Chamber on his side with his plea to leave the royal arrangements as they are. D66 leader Pechtold then talked about the "pocket money" of 1, 5 million Euro that Princess Amalia gets when she turns eighteen, but Rutte denounced this as "populism", because the whole Chamber had -with almost unanimity- agreed to this in 2008.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2203528-met-deze-coalitie-op-het-pluche-zit-de-koning-op-fluweel.html

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Republican Society has started a crowd fund action to finance a lawsuit against the State of the Netherlands. Reason: according to them the trias politica (the separation of powers) is not respected in the person of the King.

The King is formally part of the Government (executive power), Justice is formally spoken in the name of the King (judiciary power), the King is formally president of the Raad van State (Council of State) which has legislative and a judiciary powers.

For an example Justices, ministers, ambassadors, mayors, etc. are appointed by the King (kroonbenoeming / appointment by the Crown). Which could -in theory- lead to the royal family starting a lawsuit (against a boulevard press magazine, for example) and then a Judge "appointed by the King" and "speaking in name of the King" is then presiding the lawsuit. Still any subpoena has a stamp on it In naam van de Koning! ("In name of the King!"). No matter the pure formality or ceremoniality of it, the Republican Society finds this an infringement in their civil rights.

The Republican Society knows very well that the role of the King is completely limited by the ministerial responsibility. He can not appoint mayors, judges, ambassadors without a ministerial contraseign. But they -of course- want to obstruct the monarchy as much as possible, trying to get the King out any possible action (making him completely meaningless), and -if in vain- at least enjoy publicity for their republican dream. They want to extend the lawsuit to the very last stage (the European Court of Justice).

 

[victor1319]

The King is formally part of the Government (executive power), Justice is formally spoken in the name of the King (judiciary power), the King is formally president of the Raad van State (Council of State) which has legislative and a judiciary powers.

Interesting! I read three times "formally". What does this mean de facto? I am afraid, that the Monarch has no say in this at all, but is only in a ceremonial way present.

Which powers the Council of State has, is hard to tell either. I read on wikipedia, that this is an instititution like a "Crown Council" between government and parliament.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Interesting! I read three times "formally". What does this mean de facto? I am afraid, that the Monarch has no say in this at all, but is only in a ceremonial way present.

Which powers the Council of State has, is hard to tell either. I read on wikipedia, that this is an instititution like a "Crown Council" between government and parliament.

The Raad van State (Council of State), established in 1531 (one of the oldert still existing legal bodies in the world) is no Crown Council. It has two divisions.
- The advisory division, which has to review any Bill and give a (positive or negative) critical opinion about it;
- The administrative law division, which functions as the highest Administrative Court of Justice.

The de-jure president is The King, the Voorzitter van de Raad van State. The de-facto president is the Vice-voorzitter.

The two divisions (the advisory body of the Government and the Administrative Court of Justice) are separated but together form the Raad van State.

The Advisory body (note the seat of the formal Voorzitter):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Raad_van_State_vergaderzaal.jpg

The Administratieve Court of Justice:
https://smeulders-ig.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2011_008839_Bew-1200x430.jpg

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

With the personal popularity of the King, or Queen Máxima, or Princess Beatrix, etc. there is nothing wrong. They still can enjoy a warm public bath. But I absolutely sense stronger republican tendencies. I have already my mind set: "fasten yourself for shocks". After Trump, Brexit or Corona, I know that impossibilities are not so impossible anymore. The monarchy is not that safe in the Netherlands. And any falling monarchy elsewhere will have an unforeseen domino effect.

The latest shock was when I saw a Spanish delicatessen + restaurant in my street (with a lovely Spanish couple and young Spanish staff), re-opened after Corona. They were waving the republican flag (red, yellow, purple). The overwhelming majority of the Dutchies passing by will have no idea or are wrongfooted ("Oh, that surely will be a Spanish regional flag?"). I could not believe that Spanish ex-pats exploiting a Spanish commerce would openly wave the flag of the Spanish Republic.

Then I realized: be prepared for shocks. Most likely I will see the Dutch monarchy tumble down. It will hurt but at the same time I now feel: so be it. Worrying about that makes no any sense.

 

[Muhler]

The Dutch PM, Mark Rutte, has today stated that should a Dutch heir or monarch wish to marry someone of the same sex, it will be with the blessing of the government and there will no need for a monarch to abdicate, or heir to give up the claim to the throne.

It does go against the current Dutch rules, which basically says that a Dutch monarch can only marry someone of the opposite sex. But Mark Rutte says that realities have changed since the rules were last reviewed in 2000.

- In nation like the Netherlands with the policy it has in regards to same sex marriages, such a statement is hardly surprising. I don't think Mark Rutte could say anything else, without ending up in a political sh*tstorm.

The realities however may be quite different though.
A monarchy is in it's very nature a conservative institution, even if the royals themselves are progressive, and special rules apply for royals, otherwise there is no point in having a monarchy.
That's one thing.
Another matter is that a monarchy also has foreign political considerations to take into account. There are quite a few countries where same sex marriages are viewed with abhorrence and as sign of decadence. In most countries it's even outlawed.
So while I dare say most Dutch would have few problems with say Amalia marrying a women, that sentiment may not be shared worldwide - or in the Dutch Foreign Ministry...
After all a monarch and also an heir lives for the his/her country - not for their own happiness.

While I think the world can easily accept and accommodate secondary royals who marry someone of the same sex, a monarch doing so is a generation away at best.

 

[Mbruno]

The Dutch PM, Mark Rutte, has today stated that should a Dutch heir or monarch wish to marry someone of the same sex, it will be with the blessing of the government and there will no need for a monarch to abdicate, or heir to give up the claim to the throne.

It does go against the current Dutch rules, which basically says that a Dutch monarch can only marry someone of the opposite sex. But Mark Rutte says that realities have changed since the rules were last reviewed in 2000.

- In nation like the Netherlands with the policy it has in regards to same sex marriages, such a statement is hardly surprising. I don't think Mark Rutte could say anything else, without ending up in a political sh*tstorm.

The realities however may be quite different though.
A monarchy is in it's very nature a conservative institution, even if the royals themselves are progressive, and special rules apply for royals, otherwise there is no point in having a monarchy.
That's one thing.
Another matter is that a monarchy also has foreign political considerations to take into account. There are quite a few countries where same sex marriages are viewed with abhorrence and as sign of decadence. In most countries it's even outlawed.
So while I dare say most Dutch would have few problems with say Amalia marrying a women, that sentiment may not be shared worldwide - or in the Dutch Foreign Ministry...
After all a monarch and also an heir lives for the his/her country - not for their own happiness.

While I think the world can easily accept and accommodate secondary royals who marry someone of the same sex, a monarch doing so is a generation away at best.

I don't see in this day and age any problem with the heir to the throne or the monarch marrying someone of the same sex, especially in a country like the Netherlands. The only constitutionally relevant issue would be if, as a result of a same-sex marriage, there could not be any legal heir to the throne. However, since most monarchies have several people in the line of succession, it is very unlikely that such issue would ever arise.


EDIT: There is only one reference as far as I know in the Dutch constitution to royal marriages and, as long as the marriage is legal (which is the case now for same-sex marriages) and consented to by a bill approved in a joint sesssion of the two houses of Parliament, I don't see any constitutional impediment.

Article 28 [Marriage without Approval by Act of Parliament]
(1) The King is deemed to have abdicated if he contracts a marriage without having obtained approval by Act of Parliament.
(2) Anyone in line of succession to the Throne who contracts such a marriage is excluded from the hereditary succession, together with any children born of the marriage and their issue.
(3) The two Chambers of the Parliament (Parliament) meet to consider and decide upon a Bill for granting such approval in joint session.

 

[Marengo]

- In nation like the Netherlands with the policy it has in regards to same sex marriages, such a statement is hardly surprising. I don't think Mark Rutte could say anything else, without ending up in a political sh*tstorm.

He couldn't, esp. as it was his own conservative-liberal party (VVD) who suggested the change. I doubt he cares one way or the other, he is known to have a hands-off approach with any topic, which has served him very well over the years - so why would this be an exception.

 

[Somebody]

Apparently, someone (Peter Rehwinkel who married prince Floris and princess Aimée) wrote in book in which he claimed the contrary based on statements by a previous PM (Wim Kok) in 2000. Peter Rehwinkel himself is gay and married, so he probably made this claim hoping to start a discussion - and did so successfully as there were parliamentary questions about this issue which is why PM Rutte had to discuss this.

The question the PM refused to answer is whether any children of such a marriage would be eligible to inherit the throne. His reasoning was that at the time such a case might arise that question would need to be answered and it would be premature to do so now.

 

[Marengo]

Rather telling that our parlementarians only wake up when a book pushes the thing in the news, while this was known since the year 2000. At the time I thought it was hinted that Queen Beatrix herself had reminded the PM of the (succession) problems such a scenario would deliver.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It does go against the current Dutch rules, which basically says that a Dutch monarch can only marry someone of the opposite sex. But Mark Rutte says that realities have changed since the rules were last reviewed in 2000.

Apparently, someone (Peter Rehwinkel who married prince Floris and princess Aimée) wrote in book in which he claimed the contrary based on statements by a previous PM (Wim Kok) in 2000. Peter Rehwinkel himself is gay and married, so he probably made this claim hoping to start a discussion - and did so successfully as their were parliamentary questions about this issue which is why PM Rutte had to discuss this.

Are any links to the rules/statements/discussions from 2000 available? I have seen them mentioned in royalty discussions elsewhere (it was said, if I remember the comments accurately, that the then Queen and the then Prime Minister came to an agreement on not granting government permission to any future royal same-sex marriage), but no citation was given.

I don't see in this day and age any problem with the heir to the throne or the monarch marrying someone of the same sex, especially in a country like the Netherlands. The only constitutionally relevant issue would be if, as a result of a same-sex marriage, there could not be any legal heir to the throne. However, since most monarchies have several people in the line of succession, it is very unlikely that such issue would ever arise.

What I believe Muhler is saying, and I concur, is that in the Netherlands (and, in my opinion, the other European monarchies), sentiment imposes stricter "rules" than the law. For instance, there is no constitutional, legal, or diplomatic issue with any European heir choosing to remain unmarried and/or childless, provided there are other legal heirs in the next generation. Yet 100% of the present European monarchs and their heirs in direct line have chosen to marry and to produce children from (and not before) the marriage (excepting, of course, those who have not reached marriageable age).

 

[Somebody]

What I believe Muhler is saying, and I concur, is that in the Netherlands (and, in my opinion, the other European monarchies), sentiment imposes stricter "rules" than the law. For instance, there is no constitutional, legal, or diplomatic issue with any European heir choosing to remain unmarried and/or childless, provided there are other legal heirs in the next generation. Yet 100% of the present European monarchs and their heirs in direct line have chosen to marry and to produce children from (and not before) the marriage (excepting, of course, those who have not reached marriageable age).

Wat about the Sovereign Prince of Monaco who had 2 children out of wedlock prior to marrying his wife?!

While most indeed waited with having children until after marriage, several of them did live together prior to marriage (William and Catherine being just one example) - although it seems the number is still smaller than in the general population (I don't think the Benelux monarchs nor married heir lived together prior to marriage - unlike many of their country men). And several of them have no issue marrying someone who was previously married (Felipe, Charles - a divorcé himself) or had a child out of wedlock (Haakon).

 

[Mbruno]

Apparently, someone (Peter Rehwinkel who married prince Floris and princess Aimée) wrote in book in which he claimed the contrary based on statements by a previous PM (Wim Kok) in 2000. Peter Rehwinkel himself is gay and married, so he probably made this claim hoping to start a discussion - and did so successfully as their were parliamentary questions about this issue which is why PM Rutte had to discuss this.

The question the PM refused to answer is whether any children of such a marriage would be eligible to inherit the throne. His reasoning was that at the time such a case might arise that question would need to be answered and it would be premature to do so now.

As we have discussed before, in the UK, a child of a same-sex marriage, either adopted or born of a surrogate mother, would not be eligible to succeed, As I said, that is the only constitutional issue to me, but it would be irrelevant if there are other people in the line of succession, wouldn't it?

 

[Alison H]

What exactly does the Dutch law say about marriage, does anyone know? I'm assuming that royal marriage laws in most countries don't make any specific reference to opposite sex marriage or same sex marriage, simply because same sex marriage has only recently been legalised and so, when the laws were drawn up, marriage would have meant opposite sex marriage.


I don't think most people in most European countries would have a problem with the monarch or heir marrying someone of the same sex, but the issue of the succession would be more complicated.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What exactly does the Dutch law say about marriage, does anyone know? I'm assuming that royal marriage laws in most countries don't make any specific reference to opposite sex marriage or same sex marriage, simply because same sex marriage has only recently been legalised and so, when the laws were drawn up, marriage would have meant opposite sex marriage.


I don't think most people in most European countries would have a problem with the monarch or heir marrying someone of the same sex, but the issue of the succession would be more complicated.

The problem is not the marriage but the result of it. A parliamentary consentend formal union of two ladies or two gentlemen needs a third -unknown- party for the procreation. And that third party will be a natural parent of a child born in this royal same-gender union, with parental rights, but is no part of the parliamentary approved royal union.

That was the reason why - back in 2001 - the Government was hesistant about approving an union of a Heir with someone of the same gender. Not because of the homosexuality (no any problem in the Netherlands) but because of this quite unspecified, unknown and undeveloped terrain about the "fruit" of such a marriage, which requires others from outside the marriage.

Imagine that Amalia has an union with Alexandra. But the baby is a product of Alexandra and a male donor. This means that the "product" of two outsiders will be the heir to Amalia, who will not be the mother of said child. How is that "hereditary succession"? Effectively it would be the same as makinh Tom Parker Bowles or Marius Høiby the "hereditary successor" because their mother happened to be married to a Heir. Just to name a possible dilemma.

For so far there is no indication that any of the princesses has the intention to engage in any marriage.

 

[Somebody]

As we have discussed before, in the UK, a child of a same-sex marriage, either adopted or born of a surrogate mother, would not be eligible to succeed, As I said, that is the only constitutional issue to me, but it would be irrelevant if there are other people in the line of succession, wouldn't it?

I don't think the UK laws are relevant for this question that was asked by Dutch parliamentarians to the Dutch PM

The nobility laws changed in the 90s to include children that were born out of wedlock, they can now inherit titles (which Willem-Alexander's cousin Carlos knows very well given that his son that he has no relationship with used to become a Royal Highness and prince de Bourbon de Parme).

I am not sure what the rules are regarding children born from other parents than the one in a marriage in the case of nobility (for example adoption, egg cell donation, sperm cell donation (or both) from either a known or unknown donor etc). Nonetheless, as the PM said: that will be discussed if the need ever arises.

And I wouldn't be surprised if it would be approved as long as the child is biologically the child of the 'born royal' - although it makes the marriage approval process somewhat moot as the child does no longer carry the partner's genes. Would the 'donor' also need to be approved by parliament? That would complicate things even further...

 

[SLV]

The problem is not the marriage but the result of it. A parliamentary consentend formal union of two ladies or two gentlemen needs a third -unknown- party for the procreation. And that third party will be a natural parent of a child born in this royal same-gender union, with parental rights, but is no part of the parliamentary approved royal union.

That was the reason why - back in 2001 - the Government was hesistant about approving an union of a Heir with someone of the same gender. Not because of the homosexuality (no any problem in the Netherlands) but because of this quite unspecified, unknown and undeveloped terrain about the "fruit" of such a marriage, which requires others from outside the marriage.

Imagine that Amalia has an union with Alexandra. But the baby is a product of Alexandra and a male donor. This means that the "product" of two outsiders will be the heir to Amalia, who will not be the mother of said child. How is that "hereditary succession"? Effectively it would be the same as makinh Tom Parker Bowles or Marius Høiby the "hereditary successor" because their mother happened to be married to a Heir. Just to name a possible dilemma.

For so far there is no indication that any of the princesses has the intention to engage in any marriage.

Well, they for one would certainly use Amalias egg and not that of her wife. Which removes half the problem.
Curious, why don't doctors use the DNA of two eggs. Should be possible, right. Though it of course then will always be a girl.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well, they for one would certainly use Amalias egg and not that of her wife. Which removes half the problem.
Curious, why don't doctors use the DNA of two eggs. Should be possible, right. Though it of course then will always be a girl.

That is quite far-fetching. The royals already are discriminated as being the only citizens in the Netherlands whom needs public debate by 225 strangers in Parliament about any intention to engage in a marriage.

And now even that is not enough anymore: they need to give a DNA-sample to determine whether a baby indeed really is from the (future) hereditary monarch, or not ?

The parliamentary approval is an instrument to exclude undesireable partners, which indirectly had effect on Carlos Hugo prince de Bourbon de Parme and on Mabel Martine Wisse Smit: in both cases the Government did not offer a Bill of Consent. And in the cases of Claus von Amsberg and Máxima Zorreguieta Cerruti (both approved) the debate was intense because both had problematic elements (a past in the German Wehrmacht during WWII resp. a father who was in the Government during a brutal military dictatorship).

With a third party outside a consented union, Parliament effectively is outmanoeuvred as it has no say in the desireability of said "donor" whom could be Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Vladimir Putin, to name any name laying a cuckoo's egg in the royal nest.

 

[Marengo]

That is quite far-fetching. The royals already are discriminated as being the only citizens in the Netherlands whom needs public debate by 225 strangers in Parliament about any intention to engage in a marriage.

They are perfectly allowed to get married without a public debate in parliament. It just means that they can not remain their succession rights. Of all the people in the country I am not sure the royals will be heading a list of being among those that are most discriminated.

--

This whole issue is just a spin by the governing VVD, who sees it as an easy point to score. Without any controversy, without any additional public spending, without any opposition. And all that over the back of a teenager - who I am sure could perfectly well do without half the country speculating about her sexuality. I don't find it very edifying for them to expose a 17 y/o to such a debate.

As for the legal text: did anyboy manage to find it? I have made an attempt but I did not manage to find it. Or is the whole thing just based on the letter that was sent by Prime Minister Wim Kok to the chamber/ oranjeklant Rehwinkel.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

They are perfectly allowed to get married without a public debate in parliament. It just means that they can not remain their succession rights. Of all the people in the country I am not sure the royals will be heading a list of being among those that are most discriminated.

--

This whole issue is just a spin by the governing VVD, who sees it as an easy point to score. Without any controversy, without any additional public spending, without any opposition. And all that over the back of a teenager - who I am sure could perfectly well do without half the country speculating about her sexuality. I don't find it very edifying for them to expose a 17 y/o to such a debate.

As for the legal text: did anyboy manage to find it? I have made an attempt but I did not manage to find it. Or is the whole thing just based on the letter that was sent by Prime Minister Wim Kok to the chamber/ oranjeklant Rehwinkel.

It was in the Handelingen, the written description of the debate in the two Chambers of the States-General in joint session, concerning the proposed Act of Consent for the intended marriage of the Prince of Orange in 2001.

And another one in the Handelingen, the debate concerning the proposed modernized Royal House Act in 2002.

The possibility of a successor engaging in a same-gender marriage came into discussion (a few years before this debate the Netherlands became the first state in the world to open legal marriage for same-gender couples, this also crippled into the mentioned debates in 2001 and 2002.).

 

[Muhler]

They are perfectly allowed to get married without a public debate in parliament. It just means that they can not remain their succession rights. Of all the people in the country I am not sure the royals will be heading a list of being among those that are most discriminated.

--

This whole issue is just a spin by the governing VVD, who sees it as an easy point to score. Without any controversy, without any additional public spending, without any opposition. And all that over the back of a teenager - who I am sure could perfectly well do without half the country speculating about her sexuality. I don't find it very edifying for them to expose a 17 y/o to such a debate.

As for the legal text: did anyboy manage to find it? I have made an attempt but I did not manage to find it. Or is the whole thing just based on the letter that was sent by Prime Minister Wim Kok to the chamber/ oranjeklant Rehwinkel.

The Danish article that was the basis for my post use the word: "rules."

https://jyllands-posten.dk/internat...olland-siger-god-for-regentpar-af-samme-koen/

 

[Camsterlaird]

The Dutch PM, Mark Rutte, has today stated that should a Dutch heir or monarch wish to marry someone of the same sex, it will be with the blessing of the government and there will no need for a monarch to abdicate, or heir to give up the claim to the throne.

Quite right too. If the monarch was LGBT if is far safer for them to open about it, rather than be forced to marry someone of the opposite sex and create two unhappy people, with the possibility of blackmail and intrigue.

In Britain Lord Ivar Mountbatten has married his male partner, and not had to give up his place in the line of succession (albeit is is a long way down the list), and I am pretty sure the British Royal Family is more conservative than the Dutch Royal Family!