Prince William of Orange

[clydeserani]

Is the following true??? Prince William of Orange, named this because he came from the Orange Region of Holland??? was sent to Britain by his father the Dutch King because England was getting too big for its boots,

he was the Third son and is said to have had a lisp and apparently known as having low intelligence. His Army represented the Pope which would then in turn mean that he was acutally Catholic.....

If the Catholic bit is true, then why is he the modern day representative of so many Protestants etc.. (the origin of the name given to The Orange Walk???)

And lastly, Prince William was not even present at the Battle of the Boyne, but he was present at a smaller battle about 20 miles away...?????

I am not religious in any way so please dont shoot me down for posting this question. I am just trying to find out the truth of the matter as I constantly have these "facts" told to me by someone who claims they know everything about everything.

[Lil O'lady]

I expect you must either be in N. ireland or part of Glasgow? Thing is, outside of the polarised Catholic-Protestant communities of these areas, William III does not arouse great passions.
Here is a reasonably dispassionate summary, which will help you and your informant to see the matter perhaps from the outside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_En gland

When you feel the urge use google to research more, or better still, go to your library and get some real history books. It's usually best to treat 'facts' sceptically when they are promoted vigorously by someone with an axe to grind.

[jake-the-peg]

As far as I was aware William was invited to take the English by a group of English nobels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Seven

The idea that he was sent to England by his father because England was getting to big for its boots is laughable.

Especially as his father died just before William was born!

Doh!

[Lil O'lady]

Steve - are you answering the query, or a crossword?
Here's a starter list of vigorous promoters of provably wrong versions of history: Hitler, Stalin,Ceacescu, Franco, and from the original post, let's add the Orange order. There are many more.
Novels only really commenced in the later 1600's so it is not possible to use contemporary novels as a source of social reflection on the events of the Glorious Revolution.

[clydeserani]

Well thank you Lil O'Lady, Steve and Jake for your responses to my original post. Lil O'Lady, you are correct, I do live in Glasgow and the person who constantly spews all these types of things to me does indeed have an axe to grind on Religion, Politics,Asylum seekers, Ancient Heritage and Battles etc etc etc..the list goes on and on and on and on and on . Unfortunately I need to tolerate this person on a daily basis and it is not pleasant..lol..

Thank you all again for your responses. I have read the links and they have blown this persons "facts" away...

[VHG]

>I do live in Glasgow and the person who constantly >spews

I find it sad that some Scottish, Welsh and Irish people STILL get so worked up by things that happened hundreds of years ago.

These historical events give them an excuse to "hate" the English after all these years, when we in England have moved on and try to deal in the modern world.

While I accept the English did some awful things to the Scottish, Irish and Welsh, that was many many years ago when the world was a different place.

It could be argued that the Germans and Japanese did some awful things to the English during WW2, but we dont go on and on about it in England, and we are happy to buy German and Japanese goods like cars and TVs.

Many Scots and Irish and Welsh cannot bring themselves to support England at any sport for example and they say they support "anyone who is playing England".

Whereas I am English and would be happy if Scotland, Ireland and Wales qualify for the Soccer World Cup, and I would support them if they were there.

[VHG]

more...

It also shows you the divisive nature of religion, and partly explains why I will have nothing to do with religoin.

Catholic and Protestant are both supposed to be Christain religions, yet it has caused hundreds of years of wars, death, torture, hate and intolerance.

If it was not bad enough having to deal with the intolerance between Catholic and Protesant in the UK, we have now added Muslims to the "mix" which has added extra reasons to hate each other, and causes problems for the Jews, Hindus and other religoins.

Religions are suppossed to make people peaceful and loving, yet they also seem to make people annoyed, angry, upset, hateful and intolerant.

[clydeserani]

I totally agree VHG. It really cracks me up to live in a society where bigotry and racism etc is still rife. I have brought my children up to understand that people are people no matter what. I cant hold a grudge for one minute let alone hundreds of years.

Whilst I believe it is important to keep history and heritage alive, I cannot and do not condone the extreme lengths that some people go to, particularly in blaming or exhalting our forefathers after generations when clearly the "facts" of the matter become blurred and blown out of all proportion.

x.C.x

[jake-the-peg]

Abolutely VHG

What do you think of Cromwell?

[paraffin]

Can't believe some of the self-righteous drivel that's been posted here about how there's only one tolerant nation within the UK.

I live in a small village in England where there is hardly a non-white face, where overtly racist views against ethnic minorities are freely expressed, and this isn't several hundred years ago - this is 2009.

Example: A proposal by Muslims in our nearest town to turn a meeting place into a Mosque was met with a storm of protest. Why? Because no one wanted another place of worship? Because it may be constructed on greenbelt land? Because it may disturb people's sleep? Because there are far too many such buildings already in town?

NO!!!!!!! Of course not - the objections were simply based on the fact that it was Muslims, and not white, English anglo-saxon residents! You may notice that I've omitted the word "Christians", given that this is the predominant religion in England.

There is regular p*ss take in England if you are a Jock, Paddy or Taffy, which gets laughed off (no pun!) as a harmless bit of "joshing" and shovelled under the carpet, but if the boot's on the other foot, you're a minority with a chip on your shoulder.

Therefore any claim which tries to portray England as this happy go-lucky, all embracing country of caring and tolerant society compared to its sister countries within the UK is total tosh!

There are racists in every walk of life, in every country of the world, whether they existed hundreds of years ago or are alive and kicking today. England is no exception.

[VHG]

>about how there's only one tolerant nation within the UK.

Firstly, I said SOME Scottish, Irish, Welsh have this chip on their shoulder, not all.

Also, I never said ALL English are peace loving tolerant people.

However, my main comment was that the Scottish, Welsh and Irish who ARE intolerant base their intolerance of something that happened hundreds of years ago.

You rarely hear the English complaining about something that happened hundreds of years ago, and even the things done to us 60 years ago in the Second World War are pretty much forgotten.

And we English get called things like "whinging poms" for example, but you dont find us crying about it. We laugh it off and get on with it.

And your comments about Muslims. Well if you saw some of the areas of Birmingham where I live that have been ruined by Asian and Black immigrants you would understand people'c concerns.

If I could point to ONE single area that had been improved by the arrival of Asian and Black immigrants you may have a point, but believe me, once they move in it is downhill all the way (and I speak as someone who has seen it happen in area after area).

[Lil O'lady]

Have to disagree with Steve's view that bigotry as discussed in these posts stems from the classroom. Schemes of work are worked out to be even-handed.
However, History is being quickly squeezed out of the curriculum - pupils in England are down to one lesson a week if that in Year 9 (the third year of secondar school). So children then will be ever more reliant on film versions of history like, god help us, Braveheart, or on the Sun's version of stunnin shockers, or on their bigoted relatives, to form their view of the world.

[paraffin]

I am breathless by some of the ignorance expressed by some contributors on the subject of feelings of people from the Celtic nations of the UK towards England and English people in general. Quite frankly some of the views and opinions are gut-wrenchingly risible.

To suggest that the Celts hate the English etc etc, or that the only history taught in their schools relate solely to their own country is not only outrageous but totally incorrect.

How those who claim such erroneous views arrived at them is a mystery to me. I suggest a visit to Ireland, Scotland and Wales is urgently needed to enlighten your abject lack of knowledge of them!

[Mr Veritas]

I am answering this question late on in the thread,so I apologise if anything I say has been quoted already.
William's Father was NOT King, was Stadtholder(literally State Holder) of the Netherlands,there wasn't an actual King(with that title)until 1815.
He wasn't the third son,he was the ONLY son of William II(of Orange Nassau) and Mary(Daughter of Charles I of England)
Prince William's family name was Nassau~ Orange,although he was actually from the Royal House of Nassau.The Orange part came from an ancestor in the principality of Orange in the Rhone Valley(About 1500).
William(with his Wife Mary,his cousin and daughter to JamesII) were requested(by Parliament) to come to Elngland as joint monarchs when James (who WAS a Catholic) fled to France after fearing for his life after he tried to revive the Catholic religion as the state one.
He may have had a speech impediment,but the jury is out on that one.He certainly seems to have been a dull man (and gay) but that doesn't mean he was of low intelligence,far from it.
His army certainly didn't represent the Pope,although it did have some regiments of Dutch Catholics(The Blue Guards) in it,they were loyal to William irrespective of religion..He was NOT Catholic himself.I can find NO evidence of William not being at the Boyne,however he might have left to engage in another battle locally of course.

[clydeserani]

Thank you Mr Veritas,

That was exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

I kind of regret posting the original question as it seems to have opened an whole quagmire of heated discussion which was not my intention, however, it has all made for interesting reading.

Thanks again.

x.C.x

[paraffin]

Hi clyde:

For my part I apologise for your post being hijacked - I had initially looked at it out of curiosity, given that the subject, I think it is fair to say, is a controversial figure in British and Irish history.

However, given some of the inflammatory comments made, I felt the need to reply.

In retrospect, neither my posts nor any of those to which I was aiming my replies were appropriate to your query.

A couple of posts managed to supply the details you required and that at least is something positive.

[Mr Veritas]

You are most welcome clydeserani,
I am a bit of a history geek, and could bore for UK on it! LOL
It's sad isn't it that such a historical question can open such a can of worms(still),obviously there are either a lot of intolerant people out there,or people with historical wounds that are still open!
BTW I should confess that one of my ancestors a colonel under William III at the Boyne!