Future of the Dutch Monarchy

[muriel]

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.

I have to agree with you, as a teenager, this is not what the Corwn Princess would necessarily want. That said, this is the kind of meaningless intrusion into her personal life that, I am afraid, she will have to get used to, as it will be a part and parcel of her life as a leading royal.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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!

The framing is a bit off-key. Any hindrance for a same-gender marriage had nothing to do with the partner choice an sich but everything with the unknown territory it goes into.

As said, this could potentially lead to an equivalent of Tom Parker Bowles or a Marius Hoiby becoming a successor:
A = the thronefollower
B = the same-gender partner of the thronefollower
C = the natural parent (a male donor or a female natural mother)

In theory the fruit of B + C can result into a hereditary succesor born in a consented royal marriage whom is not at all related to the thronefollower.

It is no wonder that back then (2001 and 2002) Prime Minister Kok wove away questions about this as "not relevant to the debate at present" and "when such a situation arises it is up to the acting Government".

Undoubtedly a Commission will then be installed, with experts, to give a report and advice to the King (who has to agree to as he sends the Bill of Consent in his name or on his initiative) , the Cabinet, the two Chambers of Parliament, the Council of State (involved in any legislation) and the High Council of Nobility.

Also the position of the natural father or the natural mother who is no part of the royal union has to be outlined. What to do in case of a guardianship or a regency over a minor King or Queen? Has the natural parent any authority over his/her child or is it a condition to be vested in Law that he/she looses paternal authority?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

For so far there is no any indication of such a possibility, as the rumours are that the three princesses already see and were vacationing with friends (with their parents in Greece). During the unlucky depart of the King and his family during Covid, it seems there were good friends (male) travelling with Amalia and Alexia.

 

[SLV]

But it would always be A+C, never B.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But it would always be A+C, never B.

But that would be a condition laid upon the two partners, while in all same-gender unions both parents are fully equal. Anyway, is a very theoretic discussion. Alike back then: Prince Friso would be gay indeed, while he was not (and he even felt enforced to issue an official denial via the State Information Agency).

 

[Somebody]

Heirs need to be lawful descendants of the monarch (or another person in the line of succession), so my take is that if someone is not a descendant of said person (which would be the case if the monarch/born royal is not the biological parent) he/she cannot succeed to the throne - which is why adopted children are excluded, as they are children(!) but not descendants of their parents (I think)).

So, the question is whether someone born in a lawful marriage but not by both spouses in the marriage would be considered a lawful descendant; that applies both to the discussion on same-sex parents as well as if the royal couple experiences infertility and would like to use a donor to be able to have biological child by at least one of the partners (or specifically the partner in line of succession).

 

[Mbruno]

Heirs need to be lawful descendants of the monarch (or another person in the line of succession), so my take is that if someone is not a descendant of said person (which would be the case if the monarch/born royal is not the biological parent) he/she cannot succeed to the throne - which is why adopted children are excluded, as they are children(!) but not descendants of their parents (I think)).

So, the question is whether someone born in a lawful marriage but not by both spouses in the marriage would be considered a lawful descendant; that applies both to the discussion on same-sex parents as well as if the royal couple experiences infertility and would like to use a donor to be able to have biological child by at least one of the partners (or specifically the partner in line of succession).

I know you think that the position of other countries on this matter is irrelevant, but it is useful to see how those matters have been handled elsewhere.


In the UK, with respect to succession to peerages, the courts have adjudicated that if a legally married couple has a child conceived by IVF with a donated egg or sperm using a licensed clinic, or if a child is born of a surrogate mother who then legally transfers parental rights to the couple, then the child is their legal son or daughter, but cannot inherit the title or any estate that is linked to the title if applicable. That is true regardless of whether either one or both of the legal parents are the biological parents of the child.


I assume the Netherlands would perhaps take a more progressive view though.

 

[victor1319]

The only Problem...

"Bunte online", the German tabloid, has jumped into the thematic as well:

They say, a marriage between two partners of the same sex is valid in the Netherlands since 2001 and nothing forbids this for the Royal House.

Prime minister Rutte of the Netherlands, is cited with an interview in the newspaper "De Telegraaf", that a Royal would not have to abdict in case of such an marriage.

The only problem is the heir/ess: Since in the Netherlands children from a sperm/egg donor and adopted children are not allowed to follow onto the Throne, but only "legal descendents", a marriage between partners of the same sex might be not approved by the Parliament - so one Peter Rehwinkel in his book "Amalia - De Plicht roept (The duty is calling)".https://www.bunte.de/royals/niederl...aus-was-bedeutet-das-fuer-die-thronfolge.html

 

[Marengo]

I assume the Netherlands would perhaps take a more progressive view though.

I am not sure if they would -for the nobility at least. The Spanish change for noble families where the eldest child -regardless of the sex- succeeds was not copied in The Netherlands for example. AFAIK the policy of the state is to slowly let the nobility fade out/ become extinct, so making titles easier to inherit does not make sense in that respect.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I am not sure if they would -for the nobility at least. The Spanish change for noble families where the eldest child -regardless of the sex- succeeds was not copied in The Netherlands for example. AFAIK the policy of the state is to slowly let the nobility fade out/ become extinct, so making titles easier to inherit does not make sense in that respect.

Indeed, the Nobility is seen as a historical institute with historical rules. Effectively a glass dome has been put over the Nobility with three exceptions:

1.
New creations: only members of the Royal House.

2.
New incorporations: only nationalized foreigners holding a title from a country with a similar system of Nobility.

3.
New recognitions: only persons who can claim to descend in paternal (male) lineage from Nobility in the Low Countries before 1795.

Opening female succession would mean extending and expanding Nobility in perpetuity and that is not exactly what Government wants since WWII.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Nonetheless the Government expanded the inheritance of titles of nobility when they opened inheritance to out-of-wedlock and adoptive children.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Nonetheless the Government expanded the inheritance of titles of nobility when they opened inheritance to out-of-wedlock and adoptive children.

The Government did expand it to children out of wedlock as the Civic Code no longer makes a difference in legal and illegal children, as a quite considerable part of the population is not even married but have children anyway. All children are legal children for law.

The expansion to adopted children was very much against the wishes and the intention of the Government. It is the result of a jurisprudence in a juridical case in which an adopted child started a lawsuit against the State: he not only wished to be known with his adoptive father's surname but also with his adoptive father's predicate and/or title.

The viewpoint of the Government is in the Explanatory Memorandum attched to the Nobility Act 1994: 'The aim has been to maintain the policy with regard to Nobility and the prevailing Nobility Act. The existing Royal Decrees, in which the right of nobility have been implied, will be maintained. No re-codification of Nobility as such has been made.

In the opinion of the Government, the Nobility must be seen as a historically grown institution, recognized and protected by law, which can only be maintained as a historical institution indeed, but which loses its foundation if one tries to modify or organize it according to contemporary ideas.'

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Reply moved to the Dutch Nobility thread.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The consequences of opening marriage for same-gender couples was discussed in Parliament in 2000. What made that the Government was hesistant about allowing a same-gender marriage for a King or a thronefollower? See below. It is clear that opinions have changed since 2000.

The Explanatory Memorandum attached to the proposed change of Book 1 of the Civic Code (open civil marriage to same-gender couples) reads:


[....]

"Members of the CDA asked to argue how the provisions of the Constitution with regard to a royal marriage relate to what will be determined in the Civil Code with regard to civil marriage. They also asked whether there are other examples in which concepts in the Constitution have a completely different interpretation than in other legislation.

I am not aware of examples of concepts in the field of civil law that have a different meaning in the Constitution. In the Constitution, the term (royal) marriage is used in the sense of a marriage between persons of different gender, because the kingship is hereditary.

According to Article 24 of the Constitution, the kingship is fulfilled, hereditary, by the legitimate successors of His Majesty King Willem I, Prince of Orange-Nassau. These are the successors born in a legal and consented (royal) marriage.

In the opinion of the Government this link in the Constitution between royal marriage and a birth within said royal marriage for the hereditary succession to the throne, must be read as: marriage between persons of different gender.

Members of GroenLinks have asked a number of questions regarding the significance of opening up civil marriage for same-gender couples, for the succession to the throne and for members of the Royal House.

As my answers above to questions from members of the CDA have already indicated, the concept of marriage as used in the Constitution, has to be read in the sense of a marriage between persons of different gender, because the kingship is hereditary.

If a reigning King or a thronefollower would enter into a marriage with a person of the same gender, the very essence of the hereditary kingship is at stake, since it is established in advance that no children will be born from such a marriage.

The kingship or the perpetuation of it is wilfully excluded by entering into such a marriage. From discrimination against members of the Royal House to citizens in The Netherlands cannot be spoken here, as it is not about equal cases, after all: ctizens are no successors to the hereditary kingship."

[....]

This makes clear the rationale of the Government, in 2000, was not the same-gender union as sich, but the "perpetuation" of the hereditary kingship. Now we are 21 years furtherer. For the current Government a King or a thronefollower can engage in a same-gender union without being excluded from the hereditary succession. About the "fruit" of such a marriage: we will only know how the Government will handle when Princess Catharina-Amalia will really engage with a female partner and welcome issue born in that legal union.

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/dossier/26672

 

[lucien]

All that fuzz over nothing...Wait and see what happens and what Amalia comes home with...Poor girl to have to
stand through all these assumptions,live and let live.

 

[Mbruno]

The consequences of opening marriage for same-gender couples was discussed in Parliament in 2000. What made that the Government was hesistant about allowing a same-gender marriage for a King or a thronefollower? See below. It is clear that opinions have changed since 2000.

The Explanatory Memorandum attached to the proposed change of Book 1 of the Civic Code (open civil marriage to same-gender couples) reads:


[....]

"Members of the CDA asked to argue how the provisions of the Constitution with regard to a royal marriage relate to what will be determined in the Civil Code with regard to civil marriage. They also asked whether there are other examples in which concepts in the Constitution have a completely different interpretation than in other legislation.

I am not aware of examples of concepts in the field of civil law that have a different meaning in the Constitution. In the Constitution, the term (royal) marriage is used in the sense of a marriage between persons of different gender, because the kingship is hereditary.

According to Article 24 of the Constitution, the kingship is fulfilled, hereditary, by the legitimate successors of His Majesty King Willem I, Prince of Orange-Nassau. These are the successors born in a legal and consented (royal) marriage.

In the opinion of the Government this link in the Constitution between royal marriage and a birth within said royal marriage for the hereditary succession to the throne, must be read as: marriage between persons of different gender.

Members of GroenLinks have asked a number of questions regarding the significance of opening up civil marriage for same-gender couples, for the succession to the throne and for members of the Royal House.

As my answers above to questions from members of the CDA have already indicated, the concept of marriage as used in the Constitution, has to be read in the sense of a marriage between persons of different gender, because the kingship is hereditary.

If a reigning King or a thronefollower would enter into a marriage with a person of the same gender, the very essence of the hereditary kingship is at stake, since it is established in advance that no children will be born from such a marriage.

The kingship or the perpetuation of it is wilfully excluded by entering into such a marriage. From discrimination against members of the Royal House to citizens in The Netherlands cannot be spoken here, as it is not about equal cases, after all: ctizens are no successors to the hereditary kingship."

[....]

This makes clear the rationale of the Government, in 2000, was not the same-gender union as sich, but the "perpetuation" of the hereditary kingship. Now we are 21 years furtherer. For the current Government a King or a thronefollower can engage in a same-gender union without being excluded from the hereditary succession. About the "fruit" of such a marriage: we will only know how the Government will handle when Princess Catharina-Amalia will really engage with a female partner and welcome issue born in that legal union.

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/dossier/26672

That is a weird argument First of all, a marriage does not necessarily produce issue. Some married couples cannot have children and others simply choose not to have children. Compelling a married couple to have children against their will is a violation of individual human rights and the notion that marriage exists solely for procreation is outdated.


Second, and most importantly in this discussion, the constitution itself provides for the succession in case the King does not have any living descendants, which would include also the possibility of a marriage without issue:

[...] If the King has no descendants, the title to the Throne is passed in the same way to the legitimate descendants of the King's parent and then of his grandparent who are in the line of succession but are not further removed from the deceased King than the third degree of consanguinity.

That goes back to my original point. Amalia not having children who can succeed her would not be a constitutional issue in my very humble opinion as long as the line of succession had not become extinct. In fact, even if the line of succession were extinct, the constitution also provides for that contingency:

Article 30 [Appointment of a Successor]
(1) A successor to the Throne may be appointed by Act of Parliament if it appears that there will otherwise be no successor. The Bill is presented by or on behalf of the King, upon which the Chambers are dissolved. The newly convened Chambers discuss and decide upon the matter in joint session. Such a Bill is passed only if at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favour.
(2) The Chambers are dissolved if there is no successor on the death or abdication of the King. The newly convened Chambers meet in joint session within four months of the decease or abdication in order to decide on the appointment of a King. They may appoint a successor only if at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favour.

In summary, I personally agree that children born with donated genetic material that does not come from someone to whom the heir is legally married, or does not come from the heir him/herself, would not meet the standards for "legitimate hereditary succession" as outlined in the constitution. However, I don't see any requirement in the constitution that the King must necessarily marry, or must have descendants, or produce legal successors. Am I missing something?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is about the word "wilfully" I assume:

"The kingship or the perpetuation of it is wilfully excluded by entering into such a marriage."

Note it is about a marriage which needs parliamentary Consent. So the successor wilfully enters a marriage with the knowledge that it will never have fruit (in the thinking lines of 2000). Now 21 years later, we know that same gender marriages can welcome fruit indeed.

These words must be read in the framework of the debate about the opening of civil marriage. The Netherlands were the first country to do so. The Cabinet had to fulfill a complicated parliamentary parcours. My guess is that the Cabinet wanted to focus on getting this Bill through Parliament and wanted to avoid a side-debate about theoretical same-gender royal marriages, therefore these hard answers.

 

[Somebody]

The members of the new green-left party (merger of the former Labour Party (PvdA) and green party (Groen Links)) in the Netherlands voted to amend their election manifesto to include the intention to abolish the monarchy. A small majority of 52% voted for inclusion of this proposal. The party leaders did not recommend this change but considered a ceremonial role for the king sufficient.

Article by NOS (in Dutch)

This party is expected to end up as one of the three largest parties in the elections of November 22. It is still unclear which one of the three (this one, the liberal party VVD (of the current prime minister who is stepping down after a new government is formed) or the new party by former christian-democrat Pieter Omzigt NSC)

 

[Mbruno]

The members of the new green-left party (merger of the former Labour Party (PvdA) and green party (Groen Links)) in the Netherlands voted to amend their election manifesto to include the intention to abolish the monarchy. A small majority of 52% voted for inclusion of this proposal. The party leaders did not recommend this change but considered a ceremonial role for the king sufficient.

Article by NOS (in Dutch)

This party is expected to end up as one of the three largest parties in the elections of November 22. It is still unclear which one of the three (this one, the liberal party VVD (of the current prime minister who is stepping down after a new government is formed) or the new party by former christian-democrat Pieter Omzigt NSC)

Thank you for sharing this important piece of information.

Is this the first time one of the main national parties has officially adopted a republican platform?

 

[Somebody]

Thank you for sharing this important piece of information.

Is this the first time one of the main national parties has officially adopted a republican platform?

As it is hard to identify 'main parties' (as that fluctuates quite considerably), let's discuss all parties elected into Parliament during the last elections.

According to the republicans themselves (who sent questionnaires to political parties in 2021 to learn more about their stance) so far there are three parties in favor or a republic:
- Socialist Party (9/150 seats) (although so far they've seemed to state the same that the new United Left-party leaders expressed: given that most people in the Netherlands value the monarchy, they are fine with a ceremonial role; expected to loose seats in the next elections)
- Green Left (8/150 seats) (one of the two parties that merged into the new United Left party; so most likely it were primarily members of this faction proposing and voting for the amendment; expected to gain seats among others due to their new party leader, former EU commissioner Frans Timmermans)
- Bij1 (1/150 seats) (an anti-discrimination party; most likely going to loose their one seat in the next elections)

They themselves are not sure about the stance of the Party for the Animals (6 seats); probably also in favor of a republic?! Officially, they'd prefer a 'modern monarchy'.

On the other hand, there are several parties clearly pro-monarchy:
- Liberal party (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy; VVD) (34/150 seats - currently by far the largest party and therefore main coalition party, expected to lose some seats but might still end up the largest; or at least one of the three largest)
- Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) (15/150 seats - in government; expected to lose seats to the new New Social Contract (NSC) party of their former colleague)
- Christian Union (a christian left-center party; 5/150 seats - in government; expected to remain stable)
- JA21 (a populist right-wing party) (3 seats; might loose a seat)
- Reformed Political Pary (SGP; a christian-reformed right-wing party) (3/150 seats; expected to remain stable)

Source: republiek.org

 

[victor1319]

The members of the new green-left party (merger of the former Labour Party (PvdA) and green party (Groen Links)) in the Netherlands voted to amend their election manifesto to include the intention to abolish the monarchy. A small majority of 52% voted for inclusion of this proposal. The party leaders did not recommend this change but considered a ceremonial role for the king sufficient.

So, this is a bit inconclusive. The party members of the "green-left" want to get rid of the Monarchy for good, but the leaders of the party want to reduce the Monarchy to a mere ceremonial role?

And how do they go on? Is the party's position now to abolish or to reduce the Monarchy?

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

So, this is a bit inconclusive. The party members of the "green-left" want to get rid of the Monarchy for good, but the leaders of the party want to reduce the Monarchy to a mere ceremonial role?

And how do they go on? Is the party's position now to abolish or to reduce the Monarchy?

This is bit same case as Swedish SDP. On its platform is mention on abolishing of monarchy but they never wanted to further than rid monarch from all of their powers. I guess that this something like political game where they want get votes of left-wing republicans but try too placate some such left-wing voters who would are satisfied with ceremonial monarch.

 

[Somebody]

It's not a good sign if a popular tv program (comparable to the Daily Show) decides to spend more than 10 minutes on the future of monarchies and specifically what the future of kings that are deposed might like... Their conclusion: in April 2026 Willem-Alexander might expect to be deposed and it would be best for him to go in exile to Germany.

 

[Adda]

It's not a good sign if a popular tv program (comparable to the Daily Show) decides to spend more than 10 minutes on the future of monarchies and specifically what the future of kings that are deposed might like... Their conclusion: in April 2026 Willem-Alexander might expect to be deposed and it would be best for him to go in exile to Germany.

Do you think this is possible? I've always thought Amalia could be the very last Dutch monarch.

 

[Blog Real]

What is your opinion? Is the Dutch monarchy in danger?

 

[TLLK]

It's not a good sign if a popular tv program (comparable to the Daily Show) decides to spend more than 10 minutes on the future of monarchies and specifically what the future of kings that are deposed might like... Their conclusion: in April 2026 Willem-Alexander might expect to be deposed and it would be best for him to go in exile to Germany.

While I believe that it is possible that we might see the end of the monarchy in The Netherlands, would Willem-Alexander be exiled to another country? That seems a bit extreme in the 21st century.

 

[Somebody]

Do you think this is possible? I've always thought Amalia could be the very last Dutch monarch.

It's satire. I personally don't see anything drastic like that happening any time soon.

The date was picked based on the average length of reign of monarchs who abdicated which was a little less than 13 years... And 'exile' was based on the majority of deposed kings being exiled (the statistics presented were: imprisoned 17.9%; murdered 15.4%; exiled 56.4%; other 10.3%); and Germany was picked as compensation for the Netherlands hosting the German emperor during his exile - in combination with Willem-Alexander and Máxima being popular in Germany and the king also speaking German.

The host likes to poke fun at the monarchy. 8 years ago he started a campaign to become Farao of the Netherlands...

Lobbying in parliament

It ended up on the official agenda of the Second Chamber (as he was able to secure 40.000 signatures)

 

[kalnel]

As it is hard to identify 'main parties' (as that fluctuates quite considerably), let's discuss all parties elected into Parliament during the last elections.

According to the republicans themselves (who sent questionnaires to political parties in 2021 to learn more about their stance) so far there are three parties in favor or a republic:
- Socialist Party (9/150 seats) (although so far they've seemed to state the same that the new United Left-party leaders expressed: given that most people in the Netherlands value the monarchy, they are fine with a ceremonial role; expected to loose seats in the next elections)
- Green Left (8/150 seats) (one of the two parties that merged into the new United Left party; so most likely it were primarily members of this faction proposing and voting for the amendment; expected to gain seats among others due to their new party leader, former EU commissioner Frans Timmermans)
- Bij1 (1/150 seats) (an anti-discrimination party; most likely going to loose their one seat in the next elections)

They themselves are not sure about the stance of the Party for the Animals (6 seats); probably also in favor of a republic?! Officially, they'd prefer a 'modern monarchy'.

On the other hand, there are several parties clearly pro-monarchy:
- Liberal party (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy; VVD) (34/150 seats - currently by far the largest party and therefore main coalition party, expected to lose some seats but might still end up the largest; or at least one of the three largest)
- Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) (15/150 seats - in government; expected to lose seats to the new New Social Contract (NSC) party of their former colleague)
- Christian Union (a christian left-center party; 5/150 seats - in government; expected to remain stable)
- JA21 (a populist right-wing party) (3 seats; might loose a seat)
- Reformed Political Pary (SGP; a christian-reformed right-wing party) (3/150 seats; expected to remain stable)

Source: republiek.org

Thanks for providing all this info. I would think that so many parties, it would be a nightmare to pass legislation that would abolish the monarchy or rewrite the Dutch constitution to operate without a monarch as head of state.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

It's not a good sign if a popular tv program (comparable to the Daily Show) decides to spend more than 10 minutes on the future of monarchies and specifically what the future of kings that are deposed might like... Their conclusion: in April 2026 Willem-Alexander might expect to be deposed and it would be best for him to go in exile to Germany.

I don't know how likely abolishment of Dutch monarchy is in three years but I bit doubt that anymore in modern Europe deposed monarch and royal family would are expelled from the country. Seems bit extreme. And I am not sure would it be even possible in European Union.

Thanks for providing all this info. I would think that so many parties, it would be a nightmare to pass legislation that would abolish the monarchy or rewrite the Dutch constitution to operate without a monarch as head of state.

Indeed it is historically rare that abolishment of monarchy would had worked really smoothly. There has been often serious troubles on that. And have republicans anyway thought how Dutch Republic would work? What are powers of president? How elections?

 

[An Ard Ri]

It's not a good sign if a popular tv program (comparable to the Daily Show) decides to spend more than 10 minutes on the future of monarchies and specifically what the future of kings that are deposed might like... Their conclusion: in April 2026 Willem-Alexander might expect to be deposed and it would be best for him to go in exile to Germany.

10 years ago it would have been unimaginable but now I'm not so sure .
Queen Beatrix left the Dutch Crown in a stronger position than it is 10 years on.

 

[ronald biver]

The majority of the Dutch people still believe in the monarchy. the minority of the people would like it demolished, it is the same like in England, Sweden, it is always the minority that have the loudest voice in their country respectively.