BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Hilbrand

Listed below are comments made by Hilbrand between Friday, 25th April 2008 and Saturday, 6th September 2008.

«Newer
Older»

The strength of the German economy 1:07pm on 06 Sep 2008 I presume the 'Rheinturn' tower is actually the 'Rheinturm', which means Rhine Tower. So calling it Rheinturm Tower would be a bit of a tautology.
Obama woos Europe 10:04am on 26 Jul 2008 @ Kozepkorasz, post 16:

"Regarding capital cities, I am not terribly familiar with the Dutch case, but there is likely a distinction between a capitol city and a residence city. [...] In other words, I think that Amsterdam was the traditional seat of the United Provinces, and subsequently of the Dutch government, while the Stadhouder, and subsequently the Queen, resided at The Hague."

Confusingly, in the Dutch Republic/The Netherlands this was not the case. The States General (basically the national assembly with representatives from all represented provinces) always met in The Hague. The Stadhouders of Holland also resided there.

Amsterdam, however, was until about 1750 (when it was replaced by London) the most important trading centre in the world and so in a way it was more influential. Rich merchants and bankers from the city often played an (at times unofficial) part in Dutch politics. Amsterdam was also an important centre in colonial politics, as it was one (of multiple) seats of the East India Company.

The sort of double capital in the Netherlands reflects Amsterdam's historic position as the economic heart of the country, even though nowadays the city is no longer as far ahead as it used to be. Rotterdam has approximately the same amount of population as Amsterdam, and economically the harbour of Rotterdam is also very important.
Personally I'm not a fan of Amsterdam and wouldn't mind the capital moving to Den Haag.

To answer Mark's question, capital cities are defined by the government, but they should reflect, if possible, a real leading position within the country. This position can be both political and economical.
Way out in Flemish 3:27pm on 25 Apr 2008 I agree that there really is no need for signs on an English train station to be in Dutch; in both the Netherlands and Belgium English is taught from at the latest age 12, so there is really no excuse for failing to understand simple signs, like those giving exits.

Replying to post 24, G-in-Belgium, the reason why signs in some regions of Belgium are given in two languages is well regulated; this occurs only when there are two linguistic groups living in one Belgian state (the three states being Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia). Examples of these areas are the Voerstreek (Flemish land south of Dutch Limburg, but with a large percentage of Frenchspeaking inhabitants, and hence with signs in both Dutch and French) and the Germanspeaking area around Eupen, which is officially part of Wallonia and not its own state. Brussels is entirely multilingual and therefore signs everywhere are in at least French and Dutch.

So no, there is no real policy difference between Flanders and Wallonia in languages displayed on signs.

Nor will you get very far in Wallonia by speaking Dutch. The fact is that most Walloons don't speak Dutch and most Flemings are unwilling or unable to speak French. It's not really fair to blame one side for the current tensions, because these have been long in the making and were a joint effort. The Walloons really don't have much reason to complain, however, because they didn't get a bad deal out of anything thus far. Taking both the linguistic divisions and the financial subsidies they are still receiving into account, they can hardly say they got the short end of the stick.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Hilbrand