Talk:William III of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William III of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... British military history task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

See also Talk:William of Orange

Contents 1 Persecution 2 Death rumour 3 Sectarianism 4 Prince of Orange 5 House 6 William's Childhood 7 redirect from William of Orange 8 Important reforms 9 William Henry 10 Death of William 11 "Glorious Revolution" vs. "coup d'état" 12 The gin connection?

[edit] Persecution

Put more about what he has to do with the persecutions

Puritans were not the ancestors to modern day Presbyterians. Puritans were a Calvinist movement in England separate from Presbyterianism, which was Scottish Calvinism promoted by John Knox.

"Puritans" and "Independents" encompassed a wide variety of theological positions. It is not really accurate to compare them to modern denominations. Depending upon the sect (and there were many) preferred church government could be presbyterian, congregationalist, or anarchic. The term "Puritan" is a rather nebulous term in its own right. It referred originally to Calvinist members of the Church of England but eventually came to cover many (if not all) dissenting varieties of English Protestantism. A more accurate dichotomy would probably be between "presbyterians" and "Independents." During and after the English Civil War, the former group favored the retention of an English national church, but using presbyterian government and largely Calvinist theology. Independents favored a more decentralized congregational approach, with toleration for all Protestant sects.

[edit] Death rumour

I've heard the story that William fell from his horse and died after it stumbled in a mole's burrow, and that "the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat" was thereafter often toasted in Scotland. Is there any truth to this? —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)MARCUS MILLER

Yes, well, toasted by Jacobites anyway. -- Arwel 14:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sectarianism

What nothing on his modern influence on sectarianism, and how this man is a hero to every fascist nutter in Northern Ireland and South West Scotland?

Indeed. And it's a featured article as well. I'll have to keep an eye on the featured article nominations in future if this slipped through. I would have thought this article would have been mired in controversy and have a long talk page, but as you say there's nothing in the article to connect him with modern Irish matters. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince of Orange

Johan Willem Friso did not follow William III as Prince of Orange; he did use the title but he was no longer the Prince of Orange. from the Prince of Orange:

Because William III died childless, the principality was inherited by Frederic of Prussia, who ceded it to France in 1713. In this way the title lost its feudal and secular privileges. The title remained in the Prussian family until 1918, and was also given to Louis de Mailly, whose family still holds the title today.

and from Johan Willem Friso of Orange-Nassau

After the death of William III of Orange the direct line of the House of Orange was extinct and Johan Willem Friso claimed the succession as stadtholder in all provinces. This was denied to him by the republican faction in the Netherlands. His son, however, later became William IV of Orange stadtholder of all seven provinces. Because William III was related in the female line to the Prussian king, the latter also claimed part of the inheritance (for example Lingen).

I changed the succession box accordingly and moved it to the Stadtholder's succession box. I think this way it's more clear.

By the way I have put the succession box for the whole Orange-Nassau line (from Henry to William III). --145.94.41.95 14:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it again - my understanding is that Johan Willem Friso and Frederick of Prussia disputed the right to the title of Prince of Orange. It was irrelevant, because the territory was occupied by France for the whole of the Spanish Succession war. john k 14:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah! we meet again, what did you think about my improvements --145.94.41.95 15:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Title Prince of Orange is still used by William's ancestors even if they are not known by that title to the public....... William III did have a child but not by Mary rather it was by his misstress Elizabeth Villiers however the illegitemite child..... William IV... was forced into hiding by John William Friso.... however there are still descendants of William IV alive today who still have claims to the title Prince of OrangeWinn3317 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House

What house is William III, House of Stuart or House of Orange ? Astrotrain 11:37, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that he is a member of both Houses. A member of the House of Orange by birth and member of the House of Stuart by marriage. User:Dimadick

A man does not aquire the house of his wife, William III is last of the House of Orange-Nassau --145.94.41.95 16:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He represented that house in his reign of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland though. User:Dimadick

He was a member of both houses. His mother, was a Stewart, his father an Orange.

[edit] William's Childhood

There is NOTHING on William's childhood--which was interesting in its own right-- in this article. I am willing to add it in myself, but it will be a while since I've got a few other things to worry about at the moment. But his childhood really should be included in this article.*Kat* 09:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] redirect from William of Orange

In my opinion, the assumption that this guy is the best known Wlliam of Orange, is erroneous. In actual fact, the first William of Orange I ever faced in history books was William I. Not this guy. Now, I understand that some people think that the annual thing somewhere there in Belfast has most impact. I have however rarely followed that, being fed up with those recurring fightings and posings, and therefore I have not given very much attention to its details. The part played by W III was a detail, actually. The main news annually is the marching. Whereas William I is directly important, him founding the dynasty. Therefore, I would much appreciate that the disambiguation page be under William of Orange, and this guy's overinflated importance deflated somewhat. 62.78.105.43 21:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an English language encyclopaedia not the Dutch one where the link priority might well be different. William III of England is by far the best known "William of Orange" in the English speaking world. Not only because he is involved in Irish history and is mentioned in the news every year during the marching season (a mural,CNN: The marching season: A question of rights and wrongs), which puts him in the news every year, but because of his part in the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which is not only part of the British history syllabus, but is also frequently taught in history classes in the USA to help explain the roots of the U.S. revolution. For example try a Google seach on ["William of Orange" site:bbc.co.uk]. It returns 744 English pages from bbc.co.uk for "William of Orange". I would be interested to know if any of the pages mention the person you are talking about. BTW is it William I of Orange or William I of the Netherlands? Not only is William III of England the most common usage in English outside Wkipeda, but the majority of en.wikipedia links to William of Orange are about topics relating to this man. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then the majority of links are wrong :-). He is William III of Orange. The very first William of Orange was a Frankisk (or some claim Muslim.) ruler of a principality in Southern France in the 7th or 8th century (but he doesn't count in the I II III). After a lot of dynastic upheavals the name and land came in the possesion of the son of a smalltime German nobleman (16th century) and he became William I of Orange (the revolutionary). William I of the Netherlands is the first king of the Netherlands (19th century). He was a great great great nephew or something (not in dircet line descendant) of William I. So William III is the son of William II of Orange who was the grandson of William I. Hope this clarifies somethings. Chardon

William the Silent is, at least, of similar fame to this William of Orange. I think William of Orange ought to be a disambiguation page. William I of the Netherlands, btw, was previously William VI of Orange. At any rate, I think all of the Williams of Orange (I-VII, really) ought to be listed at William of Orange to disambiguate. We can fix links that are referring to someone specific. john k 19:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John, whatever we have at William of Orange, it should not be an article, but rather, a redirect. Why? To make it easier to find incorrect links (since that name is ambiguous). The argument is laid out in full at User:Jnc/Disambiguation, but in brief: if William of Orange is a redirect, and all the articles (including the dismabiguation) have other names, then a simple look at Special:Whatlinkshere/William of Orange allows one to quickly find all articles that have linked (ambiguosly, and incorrectly) to "William of Orange", and one can quickly fix them all to point to the correct place. That way, when one comes back 6 months later to do it again, one can be certain that all the links to "William of Orange" are new links, which have been incorrectly set to point there. Noel (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In which English speaking country is William the Silent as well known as King Bill? The redirect should stay where it is for the reasons I have stated above. Which in summary is common usage should be the guide. Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss this at Talk:William of Orange. But I would say that this person is the one generally referred to in English (this is, after all, the English Wikipedia) when speaking of "William of Orange". But I think the suggestion of a disambig has some merit, but I need to think about it some more. Noel (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether William the Silent is as well known as William III. Obviously, he is not. The question is whether the name "William of Orange" is sufficiently unambiguous that it should be a redirect. I think that William the Silent is sufficiently well known as "William of Orange" as to make a disambiguation page necessary. I wasn't aware that absolute equality was required. john k 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I did say I saw the argument for having it redir to the disambig (even though I needed to think about it)! The question, to me, is whether enough people come looking for one of the other "William of Orange"s to make it worth making all those people looking for this WoO go through a disambig page as their first stop (a point made to me recently by User:Niteowlneils here.) To put it more concretely, given that we have a link to William of Orange (disambiguation) at the top of this page, would we rather have:

1. N users take an extra hop through "William of Orange (disambiguation)" when they type in "William of Orange", looking for William III, versus
2. M users having to take an extra hop through "William III" when they type in "William of Orange", looking for one of the others?

Alas, while I don't have hard data on the ratio N:M, I think you can pretty much bet than N >> M. Noel (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that in a very, very tiresome discussion Philip Baird Shearer is trying to have this discussion spread to as many pages as he can, and propose as many silly alternatives as he can, except the ones proposed by others, which he has even been trying to suppress by long-range edit war. - I try to have the discussion at Talk:William of Orange, that's also where the vote is (although that vote is a bit "cumbersome"). --Francis Schonken 18:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record:

• I have not contributed to the this discussion on this page since the 7th of July. At which time the page William of Orange was directed here.
• when I realised on the 19th of August that Chardon had changed the redirect on the 19th July without mentioning here. (I was not watching that redirect page) I changed it back to what it had been up until the 19th July.
• As Chardon had commented when he changed the page on that talk page Talk:William of Orange, When I changed it back I commented on that page. A discourse between him and I started on that page.
• user:217.140.193.123 commented on the 22 August 2005 "The dispute present at Talk:William of Orange has gone too long now. Time to see how much support each of these contentions receive." and put in a request WP:RM. So I did not initiate a vote on this issue and did not think one was necessary so soon, as with only two of us debating it for only 4 days, I felt that we still had not finished talking it through.
• I moved the page to discuss the WP:RM request from Talk:William of Orange (disambiguation) onto Talk:William of Orange precisely so that the conversation was not spread over yet another page.

So now that I have explained the sequence of events I hope you appreciate that I am not "trying to have this discussion spread to as many pages as [I]can" quite the opposite. Further no one has yet come up with any evidence what so ever, that in English when the term "William of Orange" is used without qualification, that the person being referred to is not William III in the vast majority of cases. I think that the convesation should continue on Talk:William of Orange, so I will say no more in this section Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important reforms

In 1964 William established the Bank of England.

Umm, is "1964" here a typo for "1694"? Bank of England does agree that it was founded in 1694, but says nothing of William's role, if any. However, back then, I imagine the King would most likely have had a role in such an action, even if he wasn't the originator. Noel (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Henry

William III (pax britannica) is rairly if ever known as William Henry (ie "William Henry, Prince Of Orange", as a translation from the Dutch "Willem Hendrik, Prins Van Oranje"). The name "William Henry" if applied to an English king is usually applied to William IV of England before he became king as he was given the title of "William Henry, Duke of Clarence" by his father (King George III).

Inside wikipedia "William III" could also be known as "William III, Prince of Orange" like his father William II, Prince of Orange and William I, Prince of Orange. So if we are to use any other title in the introduction it should be "William III, Prince of Orange" or "William III, Prince of Orange-Nassau", to be consistent with the other "William Prince of Orange named as listed in William of Orange (disambiguation) Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death of William

"In 1702, William — who did not remarry — died of complications (pneumonia) from injuries (a broken collarbone), resulting from a fall off his sorrel mare." Is it just me or is this a needless complicated sentence? Why is necessary to desrcibe the horse in such detail? Why the not-remarry remark? I propose "In 1702, William died of pneumonia from a broken collarbone, resulting from a fall off his horse". 194.109.236.119 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Robbert-Jan

That doesn't really make sense. You don't get pneumonia from a broken collarbone. Some sort of change is in order, but not that particular change. john k 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

How about: In 1702, William died of pneumonia and from complications from injuries received (a broken collarbone) after falling from his horse. If needed the information about him remarrying (or not) can be added in as well. Prsgoddess187 12:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

John you are right, my suggestion doesn't make sense :) . Prsgoddess, your sentence suggests that the pneumonia is not a complicaton from the injury, which the orignal indicates it was. Maybe 'In 1702, William broke his collarbone from falling off his horse. This injury resulted in pneumonia, of which he died.' or something like that. Or another suggestion: "In 1702, William died of pneumonia, a complication from a broken collarbone, resulting from a fall off his horse". Whatever it will be, don't include the "sorrel mare" bit ;)

[edit] "Glorious Revolution" vs. "coup d'état"

What exactly is the point of the following sentence:

"Though the invasion and subsequent overthrow of James II is commonly known as the "Glorious Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

To clarify the issue, how would people view the following sentences:

"Though the rising against and subesquent overthrow of Alexander Kerensky is commonly known as the "Bolshevik Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

"Though the rising against and subesquent overthrow of Louis XVI is commonly known as the "French Revolution," it was in reality a coup d'état."

Generally, successful political revolutions involve a seizure of governmental power (a coup d'état). If the revolutionaries do not seize power they will not have much of a revolution. The difference between a mere a coup d'état and a revolution does not concern the seizure of power but the changes to the political system. A coup d'état alone is merely the replacement of one ruler or set of rulers with another. The French Revolution involved much more than the removal and execution of Louis XVI. The Bolshevik Revolution involved much more than Lenin replacing Kerensky as leader of Russia.

The replacement of James II by William & Mary was only part of the Glorious Revolution. The importance of the Glorious Revolution was that it established that the King of England (and by extension Scotland & Ireland) could not rule against the wishes of his people. In order to gain the throne, William & Mary accepted numerous conditions imposed by Parliament. The Stuart kings (James I & VI, Charles I, Charles II, and James II & VII) claimed a Divine Right to rule that trumped the rights of the people. They were king because God gave them the throne. William & Mary, acquired the throne because Parliament gave it to them. They and every subsequent monarch down to and including Elizabeth II reigned because of an Act of Parliament. William & Mary and their successors accepted that their power was limited by law. Further they accepted that they had to share power with Parliament. Each of the preceding Stuart kings made attempts to rule without Parliament. After the Glorious Revolution, British monarchs abandoned any idea of ruling without the legislature. Prior to the Glorious Revolution, there were long periods without a meeting of Parliament. In contrast, Parliament has met annually, with frequent elections, since the Glorious Revolution. This was a massive change in the fundamental principles underlying royal authority in the British Isles.

--ThomasK107 09:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps coup d'etat is not the right word (foreign occupation would be better) but it certainly describes what happened a lot better then the Dutch propaganda you're quoting. The replacement of James II by a ruler more friendly to Dutch interests had long been the goal of William III foreign policy. James II had supported Louis XIV wars against the Dutch Republic and weakening France by removing one of its allies would benefit Holland. After the conquest William had to bargain with the English because he didn't have enough troops to occupy England and fight the French but with some psychological warfare and propaganda he managed to extract get a good deal of what he wanted from the English (removing one of Frances key allies, English troops (though not completely trustworthy. there are some famous examples of English treachery from this period) etcetc), including being made a king. Chardon 20:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't quoting anyone, hence the absence of quotation marks. :) (I know what you meant. I am feeling pedantic today.) I was summarizing the standard English and American understanding of the Glorious Revolution. The importance of the Glorious Revolution in history is that it changed the balance of power between king and parliament. Since William III and his successors accepted the change instead of fighting for their divine rights like the Stuart kings, the stage was set for the development of genuine parliamentary democracy where real control of affairs passed from the king to ministers enjoying parliamentary support. That took over a century. The reasons why William III wanted to be king and the English/Scottish wanted to be rid of James II are less important that the radical transformation in the political system that followed from the deals the various parties made to secure their objectives. When earlier kings made deals they did not like, they immediately set about undermining them. With the Glorious Revolution, the deals that made William king stuck. Parliament could thus make deals with other kings that slowly changed the unwritten constitution. To say that the Glorious Revolution was a coup d'état or a foreign invasion is to miss its real importance. William III was not the first English king to invade England with local support and take the throne. Henry IV, Edward IV, Henry VII all did the same thing. In addition, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Edward III, and Richard III, all took the throne in violation of the rights of another with an equal or better claim to rule. The difference between those cases and William III/Glorious Revolution is that the earlier "illegal" transfers of the crown resulted merely in a change in the occupant of the throne. Henry VII ruled England in much the same way as Richard III. The balance of power with Parliament and the fundamental structure of government remained the same. With William III, a fundamental shift began that resulted in the Parliament replacing the crown as the most power institution of government. I do not think there is any question that William III wanted to have a friendly government ruling England. That is the reason for his marriage to Charles II's neice. By 1688, he certainly had reason to expect that the crown would eventually pass to his wife in view of James II's inability to father a legitimate male heir. The healthy birth of the Old Pretender must have been a shock and a disappointment. The Glorious Revolution is really not about William's reasons for taking the throne or Parliament's reasons for accepting him. The important point is the long-term change in English (and ultimately British) politics.--ThomasK107 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

William III intention was not to change the English constitution/structure of government. He wanted to rule much in the same way as his predeccesors did. The structure of government did change but that was more by accident then by design. So seen from the perspective of William his action was a coup d´etat/occupation and the his justifications propaganda (or glorious lies as an American neocon would put it) but I agree with you, seen from the perspective of English constitutionl history, that what happened after the invasion was much bigger then a mere coup d´etat. However since this is an article about William III I believe the sentence you have problems with is appropriate. Chardon 10:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to time just now to go into depth on this subject, but I don't think it could be considered a coup d'état. Incidentally, it is not listed on the coup page, whereas Pride's Purge. That page defines it an overthrow of government through constitutional means. What made the Revolution in this instance distinct that it was by constitutional means, that it was approved by Parliament. The sentence seems to me quite unfair a little like Jacobite propaganda. William Quill 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the below proposed modification and addendum to the offending sentence. I think it captures aspects of what was said above:

... it was a coup d'état, with one faction successfully deposing James II and supporting William of Orange. Of fundamental constitutional consequence was that the crown was offered under terms that ended claims of divine right, circumscribed the powers of the monarch, and firmly established a system of parliamentary constitutional monarchy that survives uninterrupted to the present.

Yellowdesk 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The gin connection?

An Amsterdam bartender told me that William III brought the first bottle of gin to Britain. Even if this is a folk-legend, it may merit mention. Wish I had time to check how pervasive the story is... Ellsworth 02:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he introduced the first bottle, but gin certainly became popular under his and Mary's reign. William banned imports of French brandy (which was quite expensive in England at the time) as a result of the tensions between France and the Netherlands and Englishmen soon began to produce the spirit, which had been a favourite tipple amongst the Dutch for quite some time (and William was quite a fan of it - so probably did introduce it to Britain). It was so cheap by the end of the 17thC (compared to other spirits), that it got one of the names it's usually referred to today, "Mother's Ruin", as it fuelled poverty and prostitution and was apparently a cause of many abortions. Craigy (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)