Talk:Wilhelmus

Inaccuracy in the Performance section

When receiving a foreign head of state or emissary, the Dutch anthem is not allowed to be played if there is no member 
of the Dutch Royal House present, this is virtually unique in the world as most countries play their own anthem and 
then play the anthem of the foreign relation.[8]

Firstly the reference link is broken so this statement goes unproven. Secondly the reason that the link is broken is simply because the article was outdated and removed by the site. In 2004 the queen wanted to claim the anthem which was later officially denied. I think the best is to just remove this phrase, but I am not a frequent Wikipedia contributor and don't want to take that decision. See http://geschiedenis.vpro.nl/artikelen/34627128/ and judge for yourself. Erniecom (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

't Sal hier haest zijn gedaen

I know that the above sentence is often translated as 'It will be soon done (=over) here'. This is probably fine if the sentence is on its own. However, it is preceded by 'Als vrome christen leven', which means 'Living as a pious christian'. The two have to be connected, since 'als vrome christen leven' is not a complete sentence in itself. You cannot translate it as 'Live as a pious christian'. So, taken the two sentence together, I arrive at the translation "Living as a pious christian, it will be soon done here", where "here" is the Netherlands. In other words: soon you will be free to serve God in the way you want. I think this translation also fits the meaning of the complete stanza much better: it is meant as a consolation of William's oppressed people. The somewhat pessimistic "it will soon be all over" doesn't seem to be a very fitting conclusion to this stanza.

Could the author who proposed the translation "It will be soon done here" reply to this?

German descend - where is the problem?

I don't know where you all see problems with the term "of German descend" ("van Duitsen bloedt"). At the time the song was written the Netherlands regarded themselves as a part of Germany: die niederen deutschen Lande (the lower German lands). The word "Dutch" comes from Deutsch, f. e. the Pennsylvania Dutch who are all of German descend. Nowadays German and Dutch are two different things, but at the time "Wilhelmus" was written both words had the same meaning: deutsch.

Yeah right. I'm not even going in on this rubbish.Rex 14:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

German descend??? If you don't know shit about the glorious 16th and 17th century history of the victorious Seven United Provinces, don't write about it. You look like a fool, who heard the bell, but doesn't know were the bell is hanging. I'am a Dutch historian. In the 16th century in the 17 Netherlands and in Germany the same language was spoken: "Duytsch". But it wasn't the same people. The German people didn't help the Dutch people in the uprising against the Spanish king Filip II of the house of Habsburg. That language "Duytsch" became later in the Netherlands "Diets" or "Dutch" and in Germany "Deutsch" or "German". That had nothing to do with the birthplace of William of Orange. He was only born in Germany in Nassau in Slot Dillenburg. He lived, fought and died like a Dutchman. According to his son Maurits/Maurice, his last words were "Dutch", "Duytsch" or "Diets". His 3th and 4th wife Charlotte de Bourbon and Louise de Coligny were called "Dutch" wives, and not "French" wives because they were born in France. After the bloody 30Years-War, poor and helpless Germany was seen as the backlands of the victorious and succesfull Seven United Provinces in their Golden Age. And not the other way round. And "Dutch" came no way of "Deutsch", but from the English translation of "Duytsch" meaning "Diets". Go learn some Dutch or Diets historybooks, stop quessing something like a fool and stop writing rubbish on the serious Dutch or English Wikipedia. What is the problem??? You are!!! The word "Duytsch" has allways been wrongly translated into "Duitsen". Only fools like you believe that. Have a nice day studying historybooks. GoldenAgeHolland (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is right here, but you have two mistakes: 1.) You write -"Duytsch" became later in the Netherlands "Diets" or "Dutch"-, then you write - his last words were "Dutch", "Duytsch" or "Diets": If I understand your first sentence correctly, he only could have said "Duytsch" as the words "Diets" or "Dutch" weren't used back then. 2.) I doubt back then they were aware of today's situation - back then it was just used "Duytsch" to describe nowadays German and Netherlands area - if I understand both of you correctly. So because of this I'd say the solution is quite easy: You just can't really translate it, because back then it hadn't the meaning of either nowadays "German" or nowadays "Dutch" - and because of that it's impossible to say back then they meaned one of the two nowadays used words. (And before you start attacking me in the totally senseless way you did to the other people writing here I just inform you that a) I don't like such long and pathetic anthems anyway, and in continuation of (a) b) one should really be able to sing what suits him or her best instead of following what others think is the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.167 (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If one wants to translate it as good as possible word by word the only right translation could be "German" though. But word by word translations are only required for language excercises from my point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.167 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One more argument for Duits as generalisation of "Nederduits" is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederduits_Gereformeerde_Kerk. LanX --217.224.61.35 00:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nederduits (niederdeutsch, lower German). You must make a difference between the year 2007 and the 16th century. In the 16th century, the Netherlands WERE German, lower German. They have called themselves "nederduits" (lower German) until the end of the 19th century. At the time the song was written, there was no difference between the Germans and the Dutch people. The Dutch people WERE Germans.

And William of Nassau is not a German because he lived somewhere what now belongs to present-day Germany. Or is Immanuel Kant a Russian because he was born in present-day Russia? William of Nassau is a German because he was a German at the time he was born. He was born in a land that was already called Germany, he belonged to a people that was already known as the German people at the time of his birth. And because of that he's German. Not because of present-day borders. I don't see any problems. William of Nassau was German, and the Netherlands were too.

Stop quessing something. The Dutch or Duytsch people in the 16th century weren't Germans but Burgundians of the 17 Burgundian Netherlands. The Batavians in the first century BC entered Holland from the side of Germany. The Batavians were the ancient Dutch, and came under the rules of Romans, Francks and Burgundians. The 16th century Dutch spoke the Duyts language, also did the 16th century Germans. That doesn't mean the Dutch were Germans, and that doesn't mean the Germans were Dutch, they spoke only the same Duyts language. Only the Batavian ancestors of the Dutch had German blood. In England in the 5th century AD the German tribes of the Saksians and Angelians entered the land. That doesn't mean that the English are Germans. King William III of Orange lived most years of his life in Holland, but he is called a English king. Please stop quessing rubbish. The 16th century Dutch weren't Germans. GoldenAgeHolland (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Song is about Wilhelm, not about the dutch people. When you look at his ancestors you will see that all of them came from Hessen(Germany). So he is truely of German blood. As far as I know the "idea" of a "Deutschland" started with Napoleon(more than 100 years later). Before that nobody had an intrest in forming a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.26.160 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This resentment of Germans has been present in the Low Countries since the 16th century, but today’s resentment of Germans mostly comes from the Dutch experiences in the Second World War. What is this all about? I think this might give the idea that Dutch people really hate germans, which is not the case. There might of course be the occasionall "german joke" but this is out of perspective imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.132.155 (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some really poor argument over here. Really bad. First of all if you want to get technical. There is no such thing has a "German" people. Modern day Germans are made up of different tribes of Germanics. The Dutch are one of those tribes and the English are a combination of two Germanic tribes from Germany and contributions from Scandinavia. William is a German but then again so are the Dutch. So why argue? It's the 21 Century. This kind of silly nationalism is part of the past. We ALL NEED Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furious Stormrage (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GoldenAgeHolland, this is your own opinion and definition. According to my research, the Dutch and the Germans actually felt like one people with a common heritage until the late 19th century. In my opinion, the current article deals perfectly with this issue, especially regarding the references. -- Orthographicus (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Let us not forget Wilhelm's ORIGINAL lyrics in Old German: "Wilhelmus von Nassawe bin ich von teutschem blut, dem vaterland getrawe bleib ich bis in den todt; ein printze von Uranien bin ich frey unerfehrt, den könig von Hispanien hab ich allzeit geehrt." Therfore of German blood--PERIOD! 91.66.8.26 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Map of the Empire showing division into Circles in 1512

Here is a map, dated 1512, of the Holy Roman Empire. It might help discussion. Martinvl (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what happened to this discussion and why was no final decision reached? it seems like valid points were made on both sides and merely using "Dutch" seems a little bit easy or rather bordering on oversimplification/misleading. I think this point at the very least deserves a caption or remark in the lyrics. At any rate, I'd be glad if this could either be finally decided or more likely - if both points are valid - at the very least appear in the article too. Looking forward to any constructive input. Cheers.

Avichai~dewiki (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

An omission about everyday use

When singing the anthem, us dutch only sing the first and sixth stanza. While they are color-coded to reflect this (presumably), it's not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the text.Mr.WaeseL 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Little game with first letters of the verses

If you take the first letter of each verse, they will make the word: Willem van Nazzov This is the old-dutch name for Willem van Nassau(we)

I do not dare to write into the main article, but maybe someone else can do that? --22:36, 2006 Jun 16 (UTC)

Vroom isn't Pious

The phrase

Dat ik doch vroom mag blijven

is not properly translated with

so that I shall remain pious

"Vroom" is indeed "pious" in modern Dutch, and it will certainly be interpreted this way by all contemporary speakers who aren't also historically inclined, but originally "vroom" meant "strong", "steadfast". See the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal -- if you can. :-) --JRM 23:06, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

True, the normal meaning then was simply "brave".--MWAK 10:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I knew that but you should note that I didn't use a translation but the English version of the lyrics ;-) Rex 13:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I had assumed as much ;o)--MWAK 14:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1st verse 2nd line

Ben ik van duitsen bloed

Duitsen means German, anyway you put it. Everyone in the netherlands has this to criticize and motions have been filed to change this part.

John of Salisbury, etc.

The reference to John of Salisbury, supposedly for the purposes of "clarifying" the article, is an absurd irrelevance. If John of Salisbury has got anything whatsoever to do with the Wilhelmus, please enlighten us! If it's just a randomly chosen instance of a name taking the form "A of B", it is merely confusing, and such names are so common that illustrating their use by reference to another completely random one is unnecessary and almost the exact opposite of "clarification".

The precise details of orthographic variation are also beside the point, at least in the lead; but it is perhaps useful to mention (even if it is extremely obvious in the context) that "Nassov" is an orthographic variation of "Nassau", so I have done so. Vilĉjo 14:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference to John 'of Salisbury is meant to clarify the use of Dutch 'van' to avoid confusion with anglicised forms of Dutch names such as Martin van buren or Dick van Dyke.

Maybe the orthografic question is very simple for you, but not for many others I will revert your edits untill you have provided more convincing argumtents. Sander 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If we are talking about convincing arguments, your justification for the reference to John of Salisbury is feeble in the extreme. (1) For the third time of asking, why John of Salisbury? He has absolutely nothing to do with it. Including the reference at all merely invites confusion, and as such is very poor encyclopaedic style. (My first reaction to seeing the reference was to follow the link and waste a minute or two trying to figure out what connection he could possibly have with the Wilhelmus.) (2) The meaning of van is made perfectly clear in the very first paragraph (The song is about Wilhelmus van Nassouwe ("William of Nassau").) Information should not be needlessly duplicated.

As to the orthography, I conceded above that a mention of the orthographic equivalence between "Nassau" and "Nassov" was perhaps justifiable. But this is not an article on Dutch orthography - there's a perfectly good one already, for those who want the intimate details. (To make it easier, I will change the link to point to Dutch orthography rather than just Orthography.) The inclusion of technical material outside the subject matter of the article is (again) confusing rather than clarificatory. Vilĉjo 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary from Sander: Now you listen to me. I am not the one that is supposed to convince you.you are the one supposed to convince me your version is better.Refrain from rv-ting untill then, and mind the 3RR. I place this edit summary here in order that any interested third parties may judge for themselves the general tenor of Sander's approach to the editing process, and his attitude to other users.

Sander's edit, of which this was the so-called "summary", was his fourth exact revert in less than 7 hours. I might have been inclined to overlook it, had he made any attempt to engage with my points on the talk page, or even been more or less polite, but as it is ... (Well, as far as I am concerned he can have the run of this article for the next few days, as I'm not going to be online anyway.) Vilĉjo 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm going to rewrite the article in the course of this week. Just announcing. I'm thinking of a complete translation and a format close to this in terms of formatting and style and perhaps an expanded section on the German, Germanic, Dutch "problem". Rex 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that 'Duitsen(Dietsen) bloed' means 'from the folk'. Is that correct?

"Duits" means "belonging to the people", but it is highly doubtful this etymology was known in the 16th century :o). Bloed is of course simply "blood". --MWAK 10:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But it's meant in the sense of 'lineage' here Mr.WaeseL 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about 16th century!!! It was no contradiction for a Dutchman to call himself Duits (=> Dutch). The formal independance of the Holy Empire was 1648, and their was no official great German nation state to be distinguished from with before 1871. The Holy Empire was more kind of a Commonwealth where the germanic citizens called themselves "Deutsch, Duits, Diets, Teutsch, Taytsch, ... etc." depending on the local dialect.

Nobody would argue about Canadians calling themselves Americans before the US were founded, Pensylvania Dutch (who speak a German dialect) call their American neighbours "Engländer", the Welsh name for England and the Finnish one for Germany are both originally meaning "Saxony".

The meaning of Duits or German have simply changed meanwhile. LanX --217.224.65.248 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are mixed theories about what exactly the author meant with "Duytschen", but it's all very complicated. Currently someone translated it as "German", I will change this soon as "Dutch" is in many respects (etymologically) closer to the original meaning.

Dutch is indeed etymological closer since IMHO Germany should better be called "Dutchland" in English! :)

"Duytschen" or "Duytsch/Duits" means "German in Modern Dutch", but the root (diut) means "of the (common) people". 'Given that, the meaning could be that William says that he's "one of the Dutch" (which would be in canon the lines in which he explains how he spend his noble blood for the Dutch) but the problem here is that "Duytsch" in that sense, is never really used in other documents of the time with that meaning (as that would have been Dietsch, Dutch).

I'm not a linguist but IMHO this root diut (or theodiscus in Latin) had this meaning in the Frankish monastries in distinction to the Latin of the clerics (8th century!!!). I doubt the meaning of "common people" was still known in 16th century. It was in the meaning of "Germanic people of the Frankish Empire, not Romance nor Slavic". Look, the protestant church has also it's origins in this period and was called Nederduits_Gereformeerde_Kerk. Why Nederduits? Where do you suppose the Upperduits to live, in the Ural mountains? The original meaning of Yankee in the 17th century is most likely a nickname for [Dutch settler in America], so better don't get confused with the meaning of "diut" in the 8th century.

Another explanation is that it means German and refers to his German heritage (as he was born in Dillenburg, now in Germany) but this is somewhat odd as Germans, being much poorer, were looked down upon by the Dutch at the time, so saying he was of German blood would not really raise his status.

Don't you think in war a (poor) German cousin is better than a Spanish king? (Like Prince Bernhardt and Prince Claus... ok Maxima speaks Spanish ... :) Furthermore, was Holland allready so much richer? The economic rise with the colonial trading only started! Why did they call their church "Nederduits" if they had nothing in common with Duits? Why do they have a Keysersgracht in Amsterdam, if the Kaiser lives in Vienna and speaks mainly German?

Then, there's the hypothesis that says that it means Dutch, and that he says he himself is of Dutch blood. Note that Duits, Diets and Duuts were pretty much regional variants at the time ... Well see the Dietsch article for more information.10:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I know this Dietsland discussion ... so what ...did you know that the full name of Yiddish is Yiddish Taytsh and Ashkenasim means German in Hebrew? We are talking about 16th century, most people of nowaday "Germany" also called themselves only occasionally "Germans", they normally were "Bavarians" or "Brandenburgians" or "Hessians" or any of the other 300 States or Statelets. They only needed "Deutsch" as distinction from Welsche (Romanic population speeking any kind of French or Italian - compare etymology of Wallonia) or Wenden (Slavic population). Or "Spaniards" like in this case. Furthermore the orthography of Standard German including how to write "Teutsh" was only fixed in the 19th century!

Look the crusaders were (and are still) called "Franks" by the Arabs. This doesn't mean they are all French! It depends on the context if a Canadian is American or not. Or wether a Brit considers himself European or not. Or wether Northern Ireland is British or not.

Please have a look at Dialect_continuum#Continental_West_Germanic and Netherlands_(terminology)#Dutch

All dialect (or regional language to be pc) speakers I know also refer to their own language as "Deutsch" and distinguish "Schriftdeutsch" ( compare Schwyzerdütsch, Plattdütsch). It's hard to believe that in the 16th century - long before the idea of nation states was born - it was handled differently in the Low Countries.

LanX --217.224.61.35 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Humorous adaptations

Could the original author of this paragraph explain why this should be in here? If this 'adaptation' would have been a translation of the text into modern Dutch, I could see what it adds. Since the new lyrics have nothing to do whatsoever with the original Wilhelmus, it is completely useless.

Please remove this section unless there are good reasons for keeping it. And at least, move it downward. As it is now, it comes before the real lyrics, which is very disturbing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.247.100.39 (talk • contribs)

If the humerous adaption section header doesn't indicate that those aren't the real lyrics sure the text will. I can't imagine people getting confused by this. The value it adds is concerning the perceived obsoleteness by some.Rex 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's say I was confused somewhat. I agree with the perceived obsoleteness of the original text, but I think that mentioning that fact is good enough. I don't think citing some random new words on the same tune has any added value. After all, there are more 'adaptations' of the Wilhelmus, and this 'version' doesn't have any official status. Therefore I do not see why this should be mentioned. It just unneccessary ballast.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.247.100.39 (talk • contribs)

I agree. The section is not really interresting because this is only one of the adaptions, which is not really relevant. Pauluzz (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't completely at random, but I understand where you're coming from. I added the "humerous adaption" and the reference to the Utrechts nieuwsblad to "prove" the statement that some consider it a bit obsolete is not just POV of mine, but actually the case. I see it as a kind of illustrating the point being made there.Rex 10:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think the section is rather useless because there is only a small amount of dutch people that think the words are too hard to understand/too old. Also, the example given isn't all that great and has a nationalistic tone. Pauluzz (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt how many dutch people would really like to see some song about tulips etc to be our national anthem. It's a really satirical song, which in my opinion is funny because it has all the possible stereotypes in it with which Dutch people don't really identify. There might be some resistance to the Wilhelmus, but mentioning this strange song has absolutely nothing to do with The Wilhelmus. I don't think anyone has even ever heard of it. Hence, please remove. Alvast bedankt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.132.155 (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. 129.27.142.213 (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to The William

As User:Rex Germanus is very busy moving articles (mainly those covering German matters, coincidentally) to new titles he calls "English", I decided to support him with this move of this anthem to The William. This is uncontroversial, as the person in question is also called William the Silent in English Wikipedia, not Wilhelmus. Compare to the much more famous Emperor William II of Germany, who is not called Kaiser Wilhelm zwo here either. Besides, William the Silent was born in present day (and then, of course) Germany, and the lyrics also are a matter of interpretation, too.

Rex, (Personal attack removed) , surely would not support Dutch nationalism.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Naturally I reverted this (Personal attack removed) edit, bordering on vandalism. Matthead, "Het Wilhelmus" is the name of the anthem, not "the william", which is a translation. I know you tried to irritate me because I interfered with your "edits" on persons of the teutonic order, (where you moved names already in English, as custom with nobility) reverting or modifying your (Personal attack removed) edits. Refrain from this kind of (Personal attack removed) actions. This time its a warning, next time I will report you to the admins.Rex 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to add that I considered Rex`s antipathy against Germans respectively Germany always with a certain sence of humor but that he now starts converting German proper nouns (Eigennamen) into English is not acceptable at all. However, if he thinks that this is necessary on English Wikipedia I will from now on support him by changing eg Dutch names into English starting with Johannes Hendrik van den Broeck whose English name is - for sure - John Henry from the Broeck. I hope that no Dutch nationalist will try to revert it back to the Dutch name! Please refer also to my "Scale on Dutch Nationalism". Kind regards, (194.9.5.10 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

It was to be expected one of (Personal attack removed) would show up soon. Dear "anonymous" IP, nobility (afap) is always translated. JH van den Broeck wasn't a noble hence his name shouldn't be translated.Rex 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

PS, as an "anonymous" IP, you can't change article names.Rex 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rex, you are really a funny guy but please refrain from peronal attacks and removing RPA, thx! (194.9.5.12 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

Nederlands o Nederlands

Should this article say anything about the song Nederlands o Nederlands, sung in part to the tune of Auld Lang Syne, which I have seen several times sung at sporting events as though it were a national anthem? Does this song have any official status? Is it prefered by people who dislike the overtly Christian nature of Het Wilhelmus? Question arising: how do Dutch Muslims feel about singing Het Wilhelmus? Do they do so? Are there any suggestions of changing the words to something less aggressively Christian? Intelligent Mr Toad 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... Nederland, o, Nederland is really just a popular soccer tune, and I certainly hope (and trust) it will never make it to national hymn status. (It merely informs us that our national team is champion and that we love them.) As to the Wilhelmus being "agressively Christian" ("pious" would be a better term to describe its content), I believe this comes up every once in a while, but as far as I know there are no serious plans to replace or adapt it. Iblardi 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that the lyrics are sanctified by history, strange though they seem to foreigners. I suspect there are more people in the modern Netherlands, as in most European countruies, who place their faith in their football team than in God. Perhaps someone could write Het Cruijffus. Intelligent Mr Toad 06:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A one poem poet-like person?

Is that the technical term? 84.53.74.196 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I don't think so. Not surprisingly, the number of Google hits for that 'term' is zero, too. Iblardi 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourg's De Wilhelmus?

How is Het Wilhelmus different from Luxembourg's De Wilhelmus? Ahassan05 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)ahassan05

Wrong translation

In this item of the Wilhelmus, the first national anthem, the 16th century word "Duytsch" is wrongly translated. The word "Duytsche" was the language spoken both in Germany and in the 17 Netherlands (Northen and Southern Netherlands and Northern France). The Netherlands word "Duytsch" was correctly translated in the English word "Dutch". "The "Duytsch" language formed later in the Netherlands the "Diets" language, and in Germany "Duytsch" formed later the German language of "Deutsch" or "German". Therfore the word "Duytsch" is wrongly translated in 'Duitsen". "Am I of Dutch blood", must be "Ben ik van Dietsen bloed". It had nothing to do with the fact that William of Orange came from Nassau in Germany. They only spoke the same language. GoldenAgeHolland (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but can You give a source for that! Because the lyrics speaks about Duitse Bloed (Blood), so its a question of descend, the lyrics don't speak of tongue or language. So Wilhelmus wanted to state his origin and in that time there was no national difference between the Netherlands and Germany because both didn't exist. There was only the Holy Roman Empire (with several territories), but the Duytsch/Dutch/German language with its varieties unified the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.199.246 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right: in the 16th century there was still a common language. But precisely for this reason it is better to translate it with the same word "Duits". That might be confusing because the same word is used for the present High German standard, but there simply is no other word for that language. Diets would refer to the Dutch branch only and thus not to the old common language. Apart from that, it is not a normal term in (or for) the Dutch language anyway, but an invention by nationalistic 19th century historians!--MWAK (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Aww. If I had seen your even smoother explanation before, I wouldn'T have written him the same in the first section on this discussion site. Furthermore according to the article itself the "official" version uses "Duits" instead of "Diets". So I wonder why the translation here in the article shows the unofficial wording in the translation. (At the date that I write these lines.) 82.113.106.167 (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Some history lesson: Dutch, German and English (or Ango-Saxon) started to become separate languages from common West Germanic since the 5th century. Although Dutch and German are related languages, in the 16th century almost 10 centuries had past since they started to separate from a common language. Regardless of what is meant in the lyrics of the Wilhelmus, (High)duitsch/Dutch/(Neder)duytsch in terms of language names were almost as differentiated in meaning as Germanic vs German is today: related phonology of the two terms, applied to related languages, but non the less different languages. Because German is the language of the people of Germany, and Germanic is a term for all the languages descendent from Proto-Germanic, of which German is just one of these languages and not even the oldest of them all. Even though today German-ic literarily means German-like, this literal meaning does not apply to the actual situation. Something similar applies to the naming of the Dutch and German language in the 16th century. By the way, the first language in history recorded by the name 'Dutch' (or 'þiudiskaz' or its Latinised form Theodiscus) was not Dutch or German, but English! Simply because the term means '[language) of the common people' --Watisfictie (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

RSes seem to give it as "Germanic": [1] [2] [3]. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Netherlands"

What I was trying to say in the less-than-perfect summaries of my last two edits: Let's try either to keep speculation about the possible ethno-linguistic content of terms used in the Wilhelmus out of the article, or source them properly. Iblardi (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Original lyrics

The original lyrics were in Old German, later they were translated into Dutch. Wilhelm writes of "German blood", not line, and certainly not of "Dutch blood":

"Wilhelmus von Nassawe bin ich von teutschem blut, dem vaterland getrawe bleib ich bis in den todt; ein printze von Uranien bin ich frey unerfehrt, den könig von Hispanien hab ich allzeit geehrt.

In Gottes forcht zu leben hab ich allzeit betracht, darum bin ich vertrieben, umb land, und leut gebracht; aber Gott soll mich regieren als ein gut instrument das ich mag widerkehren wol in mein regiment.

Leid euch, mein untersassen, die auffrecht sein von art, Gott wird euch nicht verlassen, all seit jhr nun beschwert; wer from begert zu leben der bitt Gott nacht und tag, das er mir krafft wöll geben, das ich euch helffen mag.

Leib und gut als zusammen habe ich nit gespart, mein brüder hoch mit name n haben euch auch verwart; Graff Adolff ist geblieben in Friesland in der schlacht, sein seel im ewigen leben erwardt den jüngsten tag.

Edel und hochgeboren, von keyserlichem stamm, ein fürst des reichs erkoren, als ein from christenman, für gottes wort geprisen hab ich frey unverzagt, als ein held sonder forchten, mein edel blut gewagt.

Mein schild und mein vertrawen bistu, o Gott mein herr, auff dich so will ich bawen, verlas mich nimmer mehr; das ich doch from mag bleiben, dir dienen zu aller stund, die tyranney vertreiben die mir mein hertz durchwund.

Von allen, die mich beschweren, und mein verfolger sein, mein Gott, wölst doch bewaren den trewen diener dein; das sie mich nit verraschen in ihrem bösen mut, jr hende nit thun waschen in mein unschüldigen blut.

Als David muste fliehen vor Saulo dem tyrann, so hab ich müssen weichen mit manchem edelman; aber Gott thet jhn erheben, erlösen aus aller not, ein königreich gegeben in Israel, sehr gros.

Noch sawr werd ich empfangen von Gott meim herren das süsz, darnach so thut verlangen mein fürstelich gemüt; das ich doch möge sterben mit ehren in dem feld, ein ewigs reich erwerben als ein getrewer heldt.

Nichts thut mich mehr erbarmen in meinem widersput, denn das man sicht verarme n' des königs landen gut; das euch die Spanier krencke n, o edel Niderland gut, wenn ich daran gedencken, mein edel hertz das blut.

Als ein printz auffgesessen mit meiner heereskrafft, wol von dem feind vermessen hab ich die schlacht verwacht; der, bey Mastrich lag vergraben, beförchtet mein gewalt, mein reuter sach man traben sehr mutig durch das feld.

So es der wil des herren auf die zeit wer gewest, het ich gern wöllen kehren von euch dis schwere tempest; aber der herr dort oben, der alle ding regiert, den man allzeit mus loben, der hat es nit begert.

Sehr christlich war getrieben mein fürstelich gemüt; standhafftig ist geblieben mein hertz in widerspüt; den herrn hab ich gebeten, aus meines hertzen grundt, das er mein sach wöll richten, mein unschuld machen kundt.

Urlaub, mein armen schaffen, die sein in grosser not, ewer hirt der sol nit schlaffen; und, seid jr nun verstrewt, zu Gott wölt euch begeben, sein heilsam wort nempt an, als fromme christen leben, sol hie bald sein gethan.

Vor Gott wil ich bekennen und seiner grossen macht, das ich zu keinen zeiten den könig hab veracht, den das ich Gott den herren, der höchsten majestet, hab müssen obedieren in der gerechtigkeit."

By the way, Dutch is a term and a language, not a race or ancestery. The Dutch are of German (Germanic) blood, and Wilhelm, born in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation proudly concends this fact. 91.66.8.26 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any source for these supposed German lyrics? They sound like Dutch that is made to sound like German, not like actual German. Ucucha (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The lyrics look authentic. Remember that the vocabulary and orthography of 16th-century texts do not necessarily correspond to those of the modern standard language. In fact, the oldest datable text of the Wilhelmus seems to be a German version (not sure if this is the one) from 1573 (see Knut Kache, Wilhelm von Oranien und der Aufstand der Niederlande: Die Wahrnehmung des Freiheitskampfes gegen Spanien in der deutschen Publizistik (2009), p. 57[4]). Iblardi (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you expect the first letters to spell WILHELM VON... in stead of WILLEM VAN... if the text were originally written in German?? Joost 99 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to speak of NASSVV. It seems obvious that this early German version is a translation. Iblardi (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why this is being discussed here... as the Dutch Wikipedia isn't even thinking about this "problem". Besides, this so called German blood is Duytschen bloet, Duytsch was the language back then, Nederduyts (and later Dutch) and German are both descended of that language. Take some history lessons and forget this discussion. Dqfn13 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I give you some history lesson: Dutch, German and English (or Ango-Saxon) started to become separate languages from common West Germanic since the 5th century. Although Dutch and German are related languages, in the 16th century they where almost 10 centuries separated from some sort of a common language. Regardless of what is meant in the lyrics of the Wilhelmus, (High)duitsch/Dutch/(Neder)duytsch in terms of language names were almost as differentiated in meaning as Germanic vs German is today: the latter is the language of the people of Germany, the former are all the languages descendent from Proto-Germanic, of which German is just one of these languages and not even the oldest of them all. Even though today German-ic literarily means German-like, this literal meaning does not apply to the actual situation. Something similar applies to the naming of the Dutch and German languages. The first language in history recorded by the name 'Dutch' (or 'þiudiskaz' or its Latinised form Theodiscus) was not Dutch or German, but English --Watisfictie (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Het Wilhelmus → Wilhelmus – The Dutch definite article het is not part of the proper name that is the short title of the Dutch national anthem. Dutch "het Wilhelmus" should be translated in English as "the Wilhelmus", as is done here on the official website of the Dutch Royal House. And per WP:THE, the word "the" should then not be included in the page title. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)  --Lambiam 14:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The article is not part of the name in Dutch, and should not be retained in English. Google Books shows that English-language sources rarely use the Dutch article. Ucucha 17:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with motivations given. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 20:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the title of the song is Wilhelmus van Nassouwe, but it is commonly known as Het Wilhelmus and "het" is an integral part of that nickname. Google searches for "het Wilhelmus" and "the Wilhelmus" show that "the Wilhelmus" is rarely used in English. Attempting to remove foreign articles that are an integral part of a name seems both pointless and doomed to failure. Do we really want Hague, Geria, Dorado and the like? I think not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  If the word Het is indeed an integral part of the short Dutch title, as you claim, then it should be written with a capital letter H in Dutch also when it is not the first word of a sentence. But as this search shows, that is rarely the case; Dutch texts almost always use het Wilhelmus with a lower case h. This is similar to cases like de Afsluitdijk, which, according to the logic of your argument, ought to be renamed to De Afsluitdijk. Note that Dutch nl:Den Haag, Arabic ar:الجزائر and Spanish es:Eldorado have the definite article as part of the page title also in the original language, while Dutch nl:Wilhelmus en nl:Afsluitdijk do not, and so it does not do to treat these cases as if they are the same.  --Lambiam 23:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: a link to this discussion has been posted on WT:WikiProject Netherlands. — Favonian (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes and No. The argument raised by a previous editor that "het" would have an upper-case letter is false - a counter example is "Joop den Uyl", the former Dutch prime minister. If people feel that the word "het" should be removed from the title of the article, then I suggest that the title should be Wilhelmus van Nassouwe, otherwise the word "het" should be kept. Anglicisation of the title is unneccessary. Martinvl (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  The comparison with this kind of prefixed Dutch surname doesn't make much sense. If someone was to compose a new version of the Wilhelmus, which somehow managed to gain official status as the Dutch anthem, then the old version would be referred to as "het oude Wilhelmus", and not as "het oude Het Wilhelmus". This shows that the grammatical role of het is that of a definite article: you cannot use a second definite article for a noun phrase that already has one. In contrast, if you want to refer to an old version of Joop den Uyl, you use "de oude Den Uyl".[5] This shows that the grammatical role of Den in the name Den Uyl is not that of a definite article.  --Lambiam 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Additionally, it is hard to see why the long title Wilhelmus van Nassouwe should be treated differently in this respect from the short title Wilhelmus. The long title is likewise commonly accompanied by the definite article and given as "het Wilhelmus van Nassouwe" in Dutch sources, even book titles.  --Lambiam 18:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support De Dutch Wikipeida page is just called Wilhelmus, and looking further on Dutch sites, the "het" is not written with a capital, and Wilhelmus is also used without 'het' (see for instance here). Arguments by Lambiam make sense. Joost 99 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Verlaat" in the sixth stanza

Is there any reason "Verlaat mij nimmermeer" is written with a capital V? I'd correct that myself, but I'm not sure if it's a mistake or written that way intentionally. - Lucidfox (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Religious prosecutions" in third paragraph of article

Shouldn't this be "religious persecutions"? I'm not familiar with Dutch history, so I wouldn't want to make the edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.51.201 (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for rebellion

I'd like to ask for the word "merely" to be struck from the fourth paragraph of the preamble: Hoornes and Egmont felt sufficiently strongly about the need to resist Alba's abuses, which rivalled those of WWII, to be willing to die for their cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.18.202 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"Wilhelmus"

Why is a song devoted to William called "Wilhelmus"? Should it not be called "Williamus"?2601:806:4301:C100:68A6:89F9:6AA:FC80 (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Because of Anglicisation of names and Latinisation of names.--Watisfictie (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Date discrepancy

Article says "Adriaen Valerius recorded the current melody of the "Wilhelmus" in his Nederlantsche Gedenck-clanck in 1626," but the biography says he died in 1625. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That is correct, it was published by his heirs posthumously, see Adrianus Valerius. - Lindert (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wilhelmus in Malay.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)