Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 25 August 2005

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

See also Talk:William of Orange

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.

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  14:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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 . 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 Misplaced Pages) 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)

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)

Important reforms

In 1964 William established the Bank of England.