Column

Reserving Princess Laurentien is Holland at its narrowest

August 30, 2024

Sometimes history overtakes the present in an ironic way. In 1980, D66 MP Brinkhorst proposed to significantly limit the number of members of the Royal House. His amendment was passed in the House of Representatives, after which the Van Agt-Wiegel cabinet withdrew the bill that narrowed the circle very wide.

Had that cabinet only listened to Brinkhorst at the time, there would have been no 'hassle' about his daughter, Princess Laurentien, and her role in settling the benefits scandal. Van Agt and Wiegel did not do that. They followed Queen Juliana, who did not want there to be a distinction between A and B princes in the family.

Anonymous whisperers

The meaning stems from the constitutional rule “the king is inviolable, ministers are responsible”, the magic formula with which liberal Thorbecke politically dismantled the king in the 1848 Constitution and thus created space for the development of parliamentary democracy. Presumably he did not foresee that a member of the Royal House who is very far from the throne now also falls under the rule.

Princess Laurentien is therefore inviolable. This means that if she does infringing things, which anonymous whisperers at the Ministry of Finance say is the case, the prime minister must answer for it. Again, that is not entirely the case, because of her abdication from the throne, it is a “derivative responsibility”.

Food for state law experts

Columns full of columns have already been written about how to interpret this this summer. NSC group leader Omtzigt wants to get rid of the discussion by only allowing members of the Royal House to perform ceremonial tasks. That is cruel for a socially involved woman like Laurentien, but then you get rid of the hassle. Another option is the solution that father Brinkhorst has been proposing for more than forty years. In that case, his daughter would have the space to follow her own path.

The issue is, of course, fodder for constitutional law experts. More has already been written about it than about what is really worrying, the use of administrative law in fraud policy, which made tens of thousands of benefit parents disenfranchised and into misery. As chairman of the Equal (worthy) Recovery Foundation, Laurentien worked for affected citizens, who have to wait far too long for compensation.

Nice job for the job

She has now stopped, floored by anonymous forces who are at the NOS news Hand it AD Found a willing ear. In my view of journalism, it is not appropriate for the media to report allegations against a person on the basis of anonymity. Aside from the excruciating pettiness, it will be very easy to portray public figures, as happened in The Hague with Parliamentary Chairmen Arib and Van Miltenburg and earlier CDA party leader Enneüs Heerma.

The political and administrative system in our country is strongly focused on bending and smoothing; it is not related to openness and independent minds. Laurentien's uncle Pieter van Vollenhoven can have a say in it. Half a century ago, people around the Hofvijver were pitied when the Den Uyl cabinet made him chairman of the Road Safety Council. Nice job for the guy, he can't hurt. But the attitude changed when he got stuck into the matter and later put the (much wider) Research Council on the map and, especially after the Schiphol fire in 2005, which killed eleven rejected asylum seekers, gave a sharp face.

This country needs more boring boxes

The Hague does not like it; in 2014, Alex Brenninkmeijer as National Ombudsman was relieved. It was difficult as a counterforce and kicked sensitive skin more than once. In his view, this was necessary to protect civilians who were in danger of being bulldozed by the government. Prime Ministers Balkenende and Rutte did not prune him. After his departure, the VVD put forward an accommodating car lobbyist, who, however, did not prove to be unbreakable and withdrew — you run that risk if your loyalty exceeds a critical mind.

If the scary thing in The Hague needs anything, it's people who occasionally ostentatiously cross borders. Reserving Laurentien is proof of weakness, which Holland shows at its narrowest. Did the princess harm the Crown with the “transgressive behavior” she was anonymously accused of? Quite the contrary, I think. She acted closely in the wake of William of Orange, who told King Philip II in the Placard of Verlatinghe (1581) that the king is there for his subjects and not vice versa.

It is a notion that the tax authorities have lost sight of. In her letter of departure, Princess Laurentien describes herself as 'a boring box'. This country needs more of these boring boxes.

Every weekend, Hans Goslinga writes a review about the state of our politics and democracy. Read them here.