The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to William V, Prince of Orange. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Government of the Dutch Republic in exile[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There never existed a "Government of the Dutch Republic in exile", other than the court of the former stadtholder, but this is covered in William V, Prince of Orange Ereunetes (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - did it ever actually operate as a formal "government" in any sense? I, like the nom, thought it was just a matter of a leader in exile, rather than a whole government (most of which fell with the fall of Amsterdam and was abolished). So should this just be merged to William V, Prince of Orange#Flight to Britain and expanded? I think the title itself might imply something that simply never existed. The article suggests that a government-in-exile existed (in England) concurrent with the Batavian Republic. Are there any reliable sources for such a claim? Stalwart111 01:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose my point is that something like William V, Prince of Orange, in exile might be more accurate but could still be used to adequately cover all the things he did/spoke about/considered while in exile without the suggestion that such constituted a formal government. But I can't see that a split from William V, Prince of Orange would be necessary for that. Stalwart111 01:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete while William was indeed in exile, he was never formally the government of the Republic. His exile was caused by the ongoing fighting between Orangist and Regent fractions in the Republic, (if anything the states general (ie the regents) where the formal government). A strange dual system (republican parliament AND hereditary stadholders) had existed from the early 17th century, which had finally collapsed sending one of the parties into exile (and ended up with the other party selling out to the French to achieve this). So in my view the prince was never the government (merely the hereditary army commander and popular favorite) and cannot have had any claim to a goverment. The current article gives no reliable, modern sources to claim otherwise. Arnoutf (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - There is probably a good case for an article on something like this topic, but the title is probably inappropriate and the parts of the article which would need sourcing to guarantee its notability as a stand-alone article are precisely the parts which are unsourced. While the extent of the political powers of the stadtholders of the various United Provinces had always been sharply contested, by the years immediately before 1795, they were effectively operating as monarchs with rather more powers than those of George III of Great Britain, and neighbouring countries were treating them as monarchs. William V and then William VI never dropped their claims, and the British government continued to recognise them as the legitimate rulers - and in that sense as the government - of the United Netherlands for most of the period between 1795 and 1813, and conducted a number of military operations against the Netherlands and its colonies nominally in their name, though somehow several former Dutch colonies ended up in the British Empire after 1815. This aspect of British-Dutch relations should be covered on Wikipedia. Beyond diplomatic recognition by Britain and at least some of its allies at any given time and giving some formal cover to British military operations, though, I am unclear as to what governmental functions (if any) William V and William VI purported to exercise during most of this period. PWilkinson (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well said! My concerns exactly. It's worth covering, absolutely, but I think WP might be the only place (anywhere) where such a group is recognised as a formal government, which would make it obvious WP:OR. So I might formally propose something... Stalwart111 00:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge content elsewhere or Move to William V, Prince of Orange, in exile and edit liberally to remove unsourced WP:OR about the existence of a formally recognised government. Delete title as WP:OR, no redirect. Stalwart111 02:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I refer first to the talk-page of the article for a number of arguments against the title, which I need therefore not repeat here. As to the comments of PWilkinson: it is correct that the British government considered the stadtholder the "legitimate government" of the Dutch Republic since the treaty of 1789 in which the stadtholderate was guaranteed by Great Britain and Prussia, but this treaty still recognized the States-General as the sovereign power in the Republic (besides nobody else took this forgotten treaty seriously after 1795; revolutions have consequences). In any case this obtained only until the Treaty of Amiens when Great-Britain recognised the Batavian Republic. At the occasion of this peace treaty both the stadtholder and the hereditary prince relinquished their claims to the stadtholderate (in exchange for new possessions in Germany). As to governmental functions exercised after the flight to England: William V ordered the governors of the Dutch colonies in the Kew Letters to surrender to the British, but in the case of the few colonies where they complied these colonies were completely taken over by the British as "own possessions", just as in the case of the colonies that were later conquered. In other words, William V did not govern any territory, unlike the Dutch government during WWII. After the Vlieter Incident the surrendered Dutch ships remained in possession of the Royal Navy though the British went through the charade of "buying" them from the stadtholder. As to the question from Stalwart whether reliable sources exist that treat William as a "government-in-exile", there are not: I looked at Zamoyski, who is cited most often in the article and he treats the two Williams like everybody else I know of: as puppets or prospective puppets of the British government. No "government-in-exile" there. As to the suggestion of Stalwart to move to a new title: the contents of the proposed article are (or should be) covered by William V, Prince of Orange, William I of the Netherlands, and Batavian Republic, and sundry "smaller" articles. In general the period during which pretenders pretend usually does not warrant a separate article (take as an example James III of England whose existence is not treated as a "government-in-exile" (though it could be) in wikipedia.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You nominated the article for deletion so your "vote" to delete is assumed already. Have changed your note to comment. Stalwart111 02:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Thanks for answering my queries. Yeah, moving it somewhere might not be necessary if it can be covered elsewhere, in which case I support merging it to those places. It was only if people thought that the period and associated issues were enough to justify a content fork. I thought it might be originally and PWilkinson seemed to be suggesting he thought it should at least be covered. I think there's broad agreement from those who have commented so far that the title (as inaccurate WP:OR) should be deleted. What happens to any useful content after that is another matter. It might not even be a matter for this AFD. But I certainly wouldn't support keeping the title as a redirect either way. I've added to/clarified my note. Stalwart111 02:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Just as a comical interlude: I have looked at the "sources" links at the top of this page and I was very amused. I liked the following link most: Royal New Netherlands Navy 1779 to 1815 Maybe this is something for a new wiki article? Seriously, if one looks at the "scholar" link one finds two e-books that use the article. So the article becomes its own printed source! (BTW I am very annoyed by all these e-books that abuse the free copyright to make money from the sweat of our brows. But that is another matter). --Ereunetes (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha ha, absolutely agree. Stalwart111 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 08:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge sourcable material into William V, Prince of Orange. J04n(talk page) 12:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.