Popularity of the Dutch Monarchy and Royal Family

[An Ard Ri]

It's not Amalia's fault or choice how much she gets paid, though; that's the government, who already had the option of doing something about it. Can't the money simply go into a trust for her until she is actually working?

Not being seen also means there are far fewer opportunities to do anything wrong or disillusion anyone.

I don't think any rational person would blame the Princess but it could possibly damage the Dutch monarchy further.
Right now its about damage limitation for the wounded Oranges and turning it around.

 

[Skippy]

I don't think Amalia's allowance is the main reason for the dip in popularity. The ratings are at the lowest point in my lifetime. We have had other financial discussions before and none of them had this kind of effect. The Greek vacations must have played a big part in it.

I have no problem with the appanage - 111.000 Euros a year does not get you very far these days. It might enable her to save up a bit. Later on in life neither she nor her future husband will be allowed to get much better paid jobs in the private sector. Jobs that with her family network would probably mean a much higher income than the one she will be having.

And unlike the Duchess of Brabant, Amalia will not be getting a residence by the state. She will have to find one herself. For that she will need to own a significant amount of money as she can not be living in a normal family home. She will be expected to have a house that has a representational function. A semi-detached home of 160 square meters in Den-Haag Ypenburg would be possible for somebody with an income of 111.000 Euros a year but not much more. The income will allow her to lead a middle class life style but that is it.

There is a reason why the state has decided to give the princess an allowance at this age. It is not up to the king to deny his daughter an allowance to which she is entitled by law and which was updated and approved by both houses of parlament only a few years ago.

Admittedly I was surprised to see the ratings at such a low point. Amalia's apanage is only a small point in that drop, it's more the visibility of the king and queen and of course indeed the Greek holiday. That was a major mistake over which resentment is still lingering.

 

[Blog Real]

I think the main problem was the Greek holiday. The popularity is lower, but I think it is not very worrying. The assignment of Catharina-Amalia is not a serious problem, and it is not the fault of the DRF. Now DRF needs to work hard to win over the people and increase its popularity.

 

[Prinsara]

I don't mean to say that it wouldn't be good for Amalia to start doing engagements and be seen more, especially if she's receiving money; just that as she is now, she happens to be an ideal youthful future queen with a very nice smile who has done nothing wrong, ever, and if the Oranjes want to start rebuilding some popularity, Amalia is in that sense almost gold — and with luck she'll be as carefully managed.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Juliana, Beatrix and Willem-Alexander: all of them have scored high and lows (although Beatrix never hit the popularity ratings of her her mother and her son).

But look beyond these superficialities and focus on the core question: the support for having a monarchy as a form of state. For 70 years the trend is downward, no matter personal popularity of any royal in these seven decades.

That is something which is inevitable because on the question: "Would you like to elect your own head of state" the answer is pretty obvious. Apart from any discussion about incomes, palaces or whatever.

No worries. I know one day the monarchy will end. The Dutch will do it in an orderly and prudent manner, no heads rolling, no revolutions, but that the monarchy will end sooner or later, is no surprise.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Interesting also that 75% of those polled think that the allowance for the Princess of Orange is too high.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Interesting also that 75% of those polled think that the allowance for the Princess of Orange is too high.

That is no surprise. It is a quite royal income for a young girl taking a gap year (€ 1.587.000).

 

[valeas]

I don't think Amalia's allowance is the main reason for the dip in popularity. The ratings are at the lowest point in my lifetime. We have had other financial discussions before and none of them had this kind of effect. The Greek vacations must have played a big part in it.

I have no problem with the apanage - 111.000 Euros a year does not get you very far these days. It might enable her to save up a bit. Later on in life neither she nor her future husband will be allowed to get much better paid jobs in the private sector. Jobs that with her family network would probably mean a much higher income than the one she will be having.

And unlike the Duchess of Brabant, Amalia will not be living in a residence that is provided by the state. She will have to find one herself. For that she will need to own a significant amount of money as she can not be living in a normal family home. She will be expected to have a house that has a representational function. A semi-detached home of 160 square meters in Den-Haag Ypenburg or Zoetermeer would be possible for somebody with an income of 111.000 Euros a year but not much more. The income will allow her to lead a comfortable middle class life style but that is it.

The king as prince of Orange still bought real estate from his grandmother for a reduced price but the princess is not likely to have that possibility when the time comes. The family does not have a lot of options anymore these days, most has been sold or split up due to inheritances.

There is a reason why the state has decided to give the princess an allowance at this age. It is not up to the king to deny his daughter an allowance to which she is entitled by law and which was updated and approved by both houses of parlament only a few years ago. Neither does refusing the allowance will have a lasting effect on the ratings of the monarchy. This hype will be forgotten in a few months. And even if she does refuse it for the time being, the drama will start again when she is 25, 30 etc. People are generally misinformed so many will probably not remeber that she does not receive an income, you would be surprised how many people think that even the Van Vollenhovens are getting an apanage.

But she is said to receive more than a million euro, much more than you mention or did I miss something?
Thanks.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But she is said to receive more than a million euro, much more than you mention or did I miss something?
Thanks.

It is € 1.587.000,-- for the whole of 2022.
This year (Princess Amalia will turn 18 years old on December 7th 2021) is: € 111.000,--

https://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/onder...keringen-aan-de-leden-van-het-koninklijk-huis

It is an automatism by law (like the state pension for any resident of >65 years old, also an automatism regardless any income or fortune of the beneficiant). The King can not stop it, the Government has to propose a change of this article in the Constitution. This means both Chambers of Parliament have to approve it in two different assemblies with elections in between and with a 2/3rd majority in the second vote.

But the past five years all State Budgets have been approved and all these Budgets have included the future income of the Princess of Orange in the five-year-forecast of the State Budget.

When Parliament saw the announcement of the annual income for Princess Amalia in the five-year-forecast back in 2016, they could start a procedure to change it. But there was in no way any majority for it and now it is a fait accompli.

The history repeats itself because back in 1985 we had exactly the same discussion when Prince Willem-Alexander turned 18 years old. In the end no any Cabinet finds the income of the Heir a reason to dissolve Parliament en organize new General Elections. So all remains the same.

 

[An Ard Ri]

That is no surprise. It is a quite royal income for a young girl taking a gap year (€ 1.587.000).

Which could potentially cause further negativity towards the RF later this year.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Which could potentially cause further negativity towards the RF later this year.

Mwoah, this is already known since the State Budget of 2016, presented at Prinsjesdag 2015.

(The State Budget is always accompagnied with an obligatory Five-Years-Forecast, and in the State Budgets of 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 was announced that the expenses for the Royal House would increase when the Princess of Orange would become 18 years old on December 7th 2021.)

And all these years Parliament has approved the State Budget. With every Prinsjesdag the costs of the Royal House are a news item in media, it will be no surprise to anyone.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Time will tell I guess
But times will be very different post lockdown/Covid19 with a lots of people having been out of work or lost jobs.

 

[Somebody]

There is yearly grumble about the costs of the royal house and this is just one component of it; that surely will receive a lot of attention this year but it will not lead to any changes. And next year it is no longer 'new'.

 

[Marengo]

But she is said to receive more than a million euro, much more than you mention or did I miss something?
Thanks.

You are right, I was mixing up numbers. Her personal injcome is established at 282.000 Euros a year. Which instead of a semi-detached house in an outskirt of The Hague would actually enable her to pay the mortgage for a semi-detached house in The Hague itself.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There is yearly grumble about the costs of the royal house and this is just one component of it; that surely will receive a lot of attention this year but it will not lead to any changes. And next year it is no longer 'new'.

If there is no grumble about the income of Amalia, then it is about the subsidies for the flora and fauna on the Crown Domain.


And if there is no grumble about the subsidies for the flora and fauna on the Crown Domain, then it is about the costs of the royal transportation.


And if there is no grumble about the costs of the royal transportation, then it is about the costs for the upkeep of the royal residences.


Etc. Etc.


But the Dutch have some right to grumble anyway, it is your and my money spend on the monarchy, of course.

 

[Mbruno]

You are right, I was mixing up numbers. Her personal injcome is established at 282.000 Euros a year. Which instead of a semi-detached house in an outskirt of The Hague would actually enable her to pay the mortgage for a semi-detached house in The Hague itself.

I don't understand why she has to live in or buy a house of her own when she turns 18 rather than staying at a royal residence. Is that her own choice or is it something that is required by law or by the government?

 

[Somebody]

I don't understand why she has to live in or buy a house of her own when she turns 18 rather than staying at a royal residence. Is that her own choice or is it something that is required by law or by the government?

She won't buy a house of her own when she turns 18 but will live with her parents until she goes off to university most likely (as she is taking a gap year, she will travel but her official residence will remain the palace). At some point however she will want her own place. Willem-Alexander had Noordeinde 66; which is now princess Beatrix' pied-a-terre in The Hague.

 

[Stefan]

I don't understand why she has to live in or buy a house of her own when she turns 18 rather than staying at a royal residence. Is that her own choice or is it something that is required by law or by the government?

As the government will not over her one of the royal Residences from which there are not many left as they have sold Soestdijk Palace she will have to look elsewhere for a place to live at the latest when she marries and starts to have a Family.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Doesn't the king still own the Villa Eikenhorst in Wassenaar?

 

[Somebody]

Doesn't the king still own the Villa Eikenhorst in Wassenaar?

That seems indeed a likely place to live once she would start a family. Not sure that she will live their while single but who knows...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Doesn't the king still own the Villa Eikenhorst in Wassenaar?

Yep, the house and the big terrorism proof fenced garden is rented to Abdul Rahman Al-Otaibi, the Ambassador of Kuwait in the Netherlands. Rumours say the monthly rent is 12.000 euro.

The Royal Domain De Horsten is for generations privately owned by the Orange-Nassaus but Villa Eikenhorst (one of the buildings on this Orange-Nassau, Bourbon-Parma, Van Vollenhoven enclave) was just newly constructed for Princess Christina in the eighties, so not so much history about it, but of course it is a fantastic house of high quality.

I think the Princess of Orange will live at Drakensteyn Estate and her sisters in one of the properties at the Royal Domain De Horsten. In the past decade derelict farms have been knocked down to make way for houses for family members, in this lush green nature reserve in densely populated The Hague.

 

[Somebody]

Drakensteyn is indeed also an option at some point in the future. They are not going to sell that, especially not because prince Friso is buried next to it.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

When Queen Juliana died in 2004, her four daughters inherited the royal domain De Horsten. It seems items have been swapped in the inheritance portfolio, so that -then- Queen Beatrix became the sole owner of De Horsten.

In 2017 Princess Beatrix gifted (possibly for his 50th birthday) the whole domain to her eldest son, King Willem-Alexander. It is understood that when buildings on the estate are free, family has the first option. That is probably why Princess Margarita de Bourbon de Parme, Pieter-Christiaan van Vollenhoven and Floris van Vollenhoven live on premises on the domain: they have first choice and most likely for a "friendly price".

I guess this will not be different for the three daughters of the owner, the King. It is believed the King agreed that Princess Margriet (sister of Princess Beatrix) remains the beneficient of rents of some 20 agricultural tenants instead of the owner (the King).

 

[Marengo]

The Government Information Service (RVD) has used focus groups to ask them about the role of the Royal Family during the COVID pandemic.

https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2410464-koningshuis-tijdens-pandemie-niet-sterk-uit-de-verf-gekomen

The conclusion is that COVID related visits go by unnoticed while people do remember the various incidents.

Critics claim that the royal family has lost the connection with ordinary people. People who were more positive beforehand also are more inclined to fogive the incidents.

 

[lucien]

The Government Information Service (RVD) has used focus groups to ask them about the role of the Royal Family during the COVID pandemic.

https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2410464-koningshuis-tijdens-pandemie-niet-sterk-uit-de-verf-gekomen

The conclusion is that COVID related visits go by unnoticed while people do remember the various incidents.

Critics claim that the royal family has lost the connection with ordinary people. People who were more positive beforehand also are more inclined to fogive the incidents.

IOW,people just see what they like to see if they so wish.All the work TM do during the pandemic remains largely unseen,who´s fault is that?A short sighted bunch to judge.

And yes,I am far more inclined to look over what are called incidents.Ofcourse.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

All institutions and not only the monarchy: the parliament, the justice, the media, the municipalities, the multinationals, the banks... All of them score record lows in popularity, trust, reliability.

In all European countries, by the way. The Pandemic has accelerated it, but in the UK with Brexit, the USA with Trump, France with the gilets jaunes, the Netherlands with the unseen fragmentation of parliament in tiny fractions with a few clearly bordering anti-democratic attitudes: it is a process of years.

Note that from 2013 until the ill-fated trip to Greece the King and Queen scored higher approval ratings than (then) Queen Beatrix ever enjoyed. Beatrix always lost to her mother, to her husband, to her daughter-in-law, always having higher ratings than the Queen herself. It is not really new and in the last half of the 1990's until the death of Prince Claus in 2002 also Beatrix experienced a serious dip in approval. Her image became stern, aloof, hautain, cold, out of touch, posh. It was the time with ridiculous films or theatre plays depicting Beatrix as an over-demanding mom barring WA's girlfriends and directing politicians with her royal commands.

The monarchy will disappear anyway: the popularity of the royals are just day courses. The popularity of the monarchy itself however, is a long term course. And it is in a decline from 1948 until now. No matter under Juliana, Beatrix or Willem-Alexander, the trend of being in favour of a system with a hereditary succession is downwards, be it very slowly. This decade we will witness the tipping point. For the first time more than 50% will be not in favour of a monarchy. Which does not mean they are in favour of a republic. Too much fuss, so the people will "endure" the "unlogic" monarchy with a shrinking base.

 

[Silverpot]

The monarchy will disappear anyway: the popularity of the royals are just day courses. The popularity of the monarchy itself however, is a long term course. And it is in a decline from 1948 until now. No matter under Juliana, Beatrix or Willem-Alexander, the trend of being in favour of a system with a hereditary succession is downwards, be it very slowly. This decade we will witness the tipping point. For the first time more than 50% will be not in favour of a monarchy. Which does not mean they are in favour of a republic. Too much fuss, so the people will "endure" the "unlogic" monarchy with a shrinking base.

I have the feeling that it's somewhat the same in Sweden. Most people agree it's old fashioned with a hereditary Head of State, BUT, that doesn't mean they want a republic, with a president poking his/her nose into the affairs of the State. A constitutional monarchy works very well in that respect, all power lies with the Parliament and the monarch is the figure head and the top diplomat.

My personal opinion is that we don't really need yet another politician, and I'm not alone in thinking that.

 

[Mbruno]

I have the feeling that it's somewhat the same in Sweden. Most people agree it's old fashioned with a hereditary Head of State, BUT, that doesn't mean they want a republic, with a president poking his/her nose into the affairs of the State. A constitutional monarchy works very well in that respect, all power lies with the Parliament and the monarch is the figure head and the top diplomat.

My personal opinion is that we don't really need yet another politician, and I'm not alone in thinking that.

Some people claim that it is possible to have a non-partisan president in a republic when the president is indirectly elected by an electoral college or a qualified majority in the Parliament rather than being popularly elected as in France or in Portugal. However, look at what is happening in Italy, where the prospective presidential candidates are now Berlusconi and Draghi, both partisan politicians. Or even in Germany, where several presidents have been former cabinet ministers or professional politicians.

Yes, it may be old-fashioned (and non-meritocratic, not to mention undemocratic) to grant a monopoly on the office of the head of state to the firstborn child of a particular family that was sometimes picked up arbitrarily hundreds of years ago, but, if you want to have a strictly non-partisan, ceremonial head of state, who is not tainted by any connection to a particular political party or faction, the only way to go in practice is a hereditary monarchy. And I say so as someone who grew up in a presidential republic with partisan heads of state who are also BTW heads of government.

Besides, hereditary monarchy does provide a sense of historical continuity above fluid political circumstances, which matters in some older countries as it is the case in most European nations.

 

[Blog Real]

Some people claim that it is possible to have a non-partisan president in a republic when the president is indirectly elected by an electoral college or a qualified majority in the Parliament rather than being popularly elected as in France or in Portugal. However, look at what is happening in Italy, where the prospective presidential candidates are now Berlusconi and Draghi, both partisan politicians. Or even in Germany, where several presidents have been former cabinet ministers or professional politicians.

Yes, it may be old-fashioned (and non-meritocratic, not to mention undemocratic) to grant a monopoly on the office of the head of state to the firstborn child of a particular family that was sometimes picked up arbitrarily hundreds of years ago, but, if you want to have a strictly non-partisan, ceremonial head of state, who is not tainted by any connection to a particular political party or faction, the only way to go in practice is a hereditary monarchy. And I say so as someone who grew up in a presidential republic with partisan heads of state who are also BTW heads of government.

Besides, hereditary monarchy does provide a sense of historical continuity above fluid political circumstances, which matters in some older countries as it is the case in most European nations.

I agree. I, for example, would prefer Portugal to be a monarchy for these reasons. The monarchy is a better regime.

 

[Silverpot]

Some people claim that it is possible to have a non-partisan president in a republic when the president is indirectly elected by an electoral college or a qualified majority in the Parliament rather than being popularly elected as in France or in Portugal. However, look at what is happening in Italy, where the prospective presidential candidates are now Berlusconi and Draghi, both partisan politicians. Or even in Germany, where several presidents have been former cabinet ministers or professional politicians.

Yes, it may be old-fashioned (and non-meritocratic, not to mention undemocratic) to grant a monopoly on the office of the head of state to the firstborn child of a particular family that was sometimes picked up arbitrarily hundreds of years ago, but, if you want to have a strictly non-partisan, ceremonial head of state, who is not tainted by any connection to a particular political party or faction, the only way to go in practice is a hereditary monarchy. And I say so as someone who grew up in a presidential republic with partisan heads of state who are also BTW heads of government.

Besides, hereditary monarchy does provide a sense of historical continuity above fluid political circumstances, which matters in some older countries as it is the case in most European nations.

Indeed.

Also, the responsibility for the national heritage that is our past royal history lies with the monarch. The Bernadottes have been very good at preserving and maintaining this treasure, that belongs to us all. I shudder to think what would happen to it if it were to be handed over to bureaucrats and politicians who have a tendency to follow every fad and whim of the day.
There actually are people who like to say that the Royal Palace should be turned into a hostel for the homeless and the refugees.