Who Is Queen Maxima? Dutch Empress Stole The Show At NATO Summit
Queen Maxima of the Netherlands captivated world leaders with her striking lime-green ensemble at the recent NATO summit. The queen and her husband, King Willem-Alexander, welcomed world leaders from 32 countries at The Hague's World Forum on Tuesday. This was the first time the Netherlands played host to a NATO summit.
In the summit's family photo, Queen Maxima's striking lime-green jumpsuit featured a V-neckline and flowing cape-like sleeves. A decorative embellishment on one shoulder elevated her entire look.
Who Is Queen Maxima?
Born on May 17, 1971, as Maxima Zorreguieta, to Jorge Horacio Zorreguieta and Maria del Carmen Cerruti de Zorreguieta, she grew up in Buenos Aires. She graduated in economics from the Universidad Catolica Argentina in 1995.
Even during her university days, she worked in the Sales Department of Boston Securities SA in Buenos Aires, according to the official website of the Royal House of Netherlands. At the time, she also taught children and adults, English, and mathematics to secondary school pupils and first-year students.
Queen Maxima first worked for HSBC James Capel Inc. in New York from 1996 to 1998. She was Vice-President of Latin American Institutional Sales. Next, she was at Dresdner Kleinwort Benson, as Vice-President of the Emerging Markets Division, until July 1999.
Her next move took her to Deutsche Bank in New York, placing her as the Vice-President of Institutional Sales. From May 2000 to March 2001, she worked at the EU Representative Office of Deutsche Bank in Brussels.
She first met her husband, then-Crown Prince Willem-Alexander, at a party in Spain in 1999.
While the couple quickly fell in love, their relationship took a turn for the worse when the Dutch media revealed that Maxima's father had been a minister for Argentina's violent military junta regime during the infamous Dirty War.
Despite the uproar, former Queen Beatrix approved her oldest son's union, calling Maxima a "modern, intelligent woman."
A year after their marriage, Willem-Alexander became the King of the Netherlands at the age of 46. He ascended to the throne on April 30, 2013, upon the abdication of his mother, Queen Beatrix.
With his coronation, Maxima became the queen of the Netherlands. She quickly gained popularity for her charisma, smart wit, and strong work ethic.
Today, Maxima is well recognised for taking a stand on tough political issues such as immigration and women's economic empowerment. The Dutch Queen also received praise for her early support of LGBTQ+ rights.
The royal couple is known for their easygoing attitude toward life as a monarch. They opted out of hosting a coronation ceremony and chose to send their three children, Princess Catharina-Amalia, 21, Princess Alexia, 19, and Princess Ariane, 18, to public school instead of a prestigious private institution.
Their oldest daughter, Catharina-Amalia, also known as Princess of Orange, is the heir to the Dutch crown.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
15 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump says Israel sent agents to inspect Iran's Fordo nuclear site after US strike
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday claimed that Israel sent agents to Iran's Fordo nuclear site after the US struck it earlier this week, insisting the attack was a success and warning that he was willing to strike again if Iran tried to revive its enrichment program.'You know they have guys that go in there after the hit, and they said it was total obliteration,' Trump told reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague, referring to the bombing of the Fordo nuclear is doing a report on it now, I understand, and I was told that they said it was total obliteration. I believe it was total obliteration, and I believe they didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast.' A leaked US intelligence report suggested this week that the strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities did not destroy their underground components and that much of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium may already have been spirited out of the sites before they were bombed. The White House has rejected the report's findings while condemning the officials told the Kan public broadcaster Wednesday, responding to Trump's comments, that they were unaware of any Israeli operation at the Fordo nuclear facility after the President Donald Trump says he will strike Iran again if it tries to restart its nuclear enrichment program, but he's sure it won't be by a reporter if the US would carry out more attacks if Tehran rebuilds its uranium enrichment facilities, Trump said, 'Sure. But I'm not going to have to worry about that. It's gone for years.'Asked how long he thinks the Iranian nuclear program has been set back, Trump said: 'I think it's basically decades because I don't think they'll ever do it again. I think they've had it. I mean, they just went through hell. They've had it.''The last thing they want to do is enrich anything right now,' added Trump. 'They want to recover.' 'They're not going to have a bomb and they're not going to enrich,' he compares his Iran strikes with the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Molly Ploofkins (@Mollyploofkins) June 25, 2025Trump compared the US bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites to the nuclear weapons America dropped on Japan to end World War II: 'That hit ended the war. That hit ended the war. I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima, I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially the same thing that ended that war. This ended that, this ended that war. If we didn't take that out, they would have been fighting right now.''I think we'll end up having somewhat of a relationship with Iran,' he added.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Is the ED Undermining the Constitution by Targeting Lawyers?
Published : Jun 25, 2025 14:29 IST - 8 MINS READ There are some principles so deeply woven into the fabric of a constitutional democracy that to question them seems absurd. One such well-established principle that lies at the foundation of fair legal systems is the advocate-client privilege, recognised as early as the 16th century. One of the earliest recorded English cases involving legal privilege was Berd v. Lovelace Ch., Cary 62, 21 33 (1577). A solicitor named Thomas Hawtry was served a subpoena to testify in a case he was professionally involved in. As it turned out, Hawtry had 'received several fees of the defendant', making him not just a witness, but the legal adviser to one of the parties. Interestingly enough, privilege was already assumed to be established practice by this time and certain communications made in confidence between advocates and clients were not to be disclosed in evidence in judicial proceedings without the client's consent. As such the English Court of Chancery refused to compel his testimony and he could not be deposed. The rationale was ethical, not constitutional: advocates were 'gentlemen' who should not betray confidences. The advocate had a 'duty of honour'—an early form of what we now call legal ethics. Privilege: a bedrock of justice Over time, in the 19th century, legal privilege transformed from an advocate's ethical duty to a client's legal right. For an adversarial legal system, this shift was essential, as otherwise the entire justice system would be compromised. This modern principle became settled law after the landmark judgment of Lord Selborne, L.C. in Minet v. Morgan ((1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 361.) which clarified that legal professional privilege will attach to confidential communications that were made either with reference to existing or contemplated litigation, or for the purpose of obtaining professional legal advice. Soon thereafter, legal privilege came to be rooted in constitutional protections in various jurisdictions, notably in countries with common law system that inherited British traditions like the US, Canada, Australia, and India, as an accused person's right against self-incrimination. Without this protection, individuals would be trammeled by the apprehension that a frank disclosure of facts to their counsel may somehow be subject to being used against them, thereby compromising their access to justice. Also Read | The Supreme Court just made it harder for women to become district judges Constitutional protection Section 132(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the earlier sections 126–129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, recognise and afford privileged status to communications between advocates and their clients. A corresponding obligation is also cast on advocates not to reveal privileged communications under the rules of the Bar Council of India. However, this privilege is not a mere statutory protection, rather it is one of the fundamental rights located in Article 20(3) of the Constitution as an accused person's right against self-incrimination. If an individual's discussions with their legal counsel were to be permitted to be subpoenaed in investigation, they will be unable to seek robust legal advice, and rely on counsel without fear that it might become criminal evidence. Without this protection, individuals would be caught between a rock and a hard place having to risk sound legal counsel over incriminating themselves. Therefore, this privilege and right essential for fair functioning of the criminal justice system protects the individual or client, and really belongs to them and not to their advocate. It is the thread that ties individual liberty to constitutional protections and if the space for such privilege collapses, it would jeopardise every citizen's fundamental right against self-incrimination, fair defence, due process, and equality before law. Summoning senior advocates The protections that our Constitution affords, both civil and criminal, to all citizens of the country are dependent on the aid of those skilled and trained in the law. Without these protections, individuals would hesitate to seek legal advice as disclosure of any facts and thoughts could become evidence to be used against them. Equally, this privilege is incumbent on the advocate to protect the confidentiality of their clients. Therefore, the maintenance of confidentiality in the relationship between an advocate and client is an essential thread to the effective operation of the legal system. Yet, in a deeply troubling trend, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has begun to fray that thread—by summoning Senior Advocates under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for rendering legal opinions to clients in the normal course of their professional work. The summons do not accuse the Senior Advocates of criminal complicity. Instead, they are expected to justify the legal opinions they offered, sometimes years prior, to clients who are now under investigation. When investigating agencies summon advocates rendering legal advice, it sets a dangerous precedent, eroding trust in the legal process and damaging professional independence. In a country governed by rule of law, legal privilege protects the fundamental rights of the citizens forming a crucial and indispensable cornerstone of justice. Such actions undermine this essential legal scaffolding and strike at the core of how justice is supposed to function in a society governed by rule of law. Be you ever so high, the law is above you The summons issued to Senior Advocates early in June were withdrawn by the ED. The ED issued a press release dated June 20, clarifying its position on not issuing summons under money laundering investigations to advocates without adhering to legal privilege. Further, it clarified that if any summons need to be issued under the exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, the same shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director of the ED. Two things emerge: one, the two summons were issued in violation of Section 132 of the BSA, otherwise they would not have been withdrawn; two, if summons need to be issued under the exceptions to the said provision, they shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director of the ED. However, this requirement of prior approval of the Director is a check introduced by the ED and has no statutory backing. Thus, it will remain merely a guideline issued in a press release by the ED for its officers, and any summon issued by an officer without seeking permission of the Director would only lead to internal action and have no recourse in a court of law. As far as advocates are concerned, they cannot be summoned for investigation in a case where they have rendered professional services, because they are statutorily protected by Section 132 of the BSA. To pierce this protection casually, without strong evidence of wrongdoing, is to play with constitutional fire. Such privilege and protection is a pillar of rule of law, and in any society governed by the rule of law, advocates are more than service providers. They are officers of the court, defenders of liberty, and key intermediaries between citizens and the state. The selective use of summons against advocates, particularly those representing clients involved in politically sensitive or high-profile matters, creates patterns of discriminatory enforcement that violate the guarantees of Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) of the Constitution. These rights extend to both advocates and clients, whose access to free and fair legal representation becomes chilled when their counsel is subject to coercive scrutiny. A criminal court ought to reject any evidence that has come into existence solely for the purpose of being used in pending or anticipated litigation, where such evidence was extracted in derogation of legal privilege and without the consent of the person entitled to it. Admitting such material would subvert the court's procedure and would violate Article 20(3), which protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves thus eroding the very nature of adversarial litigation. This erosion is not merely procedural, it is profoundly constitutional and threatens to dismantle the bulwarks of constitutional protection through procedural shortcuts. Jurisprudence and common law conceptions frame advocate-client privilege not as confined to a specific legal proceeding, but as rooted in the broader principle of preserving confidentiality. The very term 'confidentiality' is derived from the Latin word confidere—to trust, to have faith. That trust is the lifeblood of any functioning legal system. The ability of individuals and enterprises to seek legal advice freely, fearlessly, and without apprehension of state retaliation or compelled disclosure, is indispensable. If either the client or the lawyer could be compelled to reveal what passed between them in confidence, the rule of law itself would be hollowed out. While legal privilege and confidentiality are separate concepts, confidentiality is intuitively a form of privacy and an individual's right to privacy is firmly established as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Also Read | Is Supreme Court exceeding its bounds by restricting Governors' authority on State Bills? What emerges from our legal tradition, as well as from comparative constitutional jurisprudence, is clear: advocate-client privilege is not a transactional convenience or a lawyer's prerogative. It is a constitutional mechanism designed to protect the fairness of the legal process itself. The law recognises that privilege is not a technicality; it is a constitutional shield woven from the principles of equality, dignity, privacy, and due process. It ensures that individuals and entities can access legal advice without fear that their words will later be used against them. The sanctity of that relationship is rooted in trust, and that trust is in turn protected by a constellation of constitutional rights. If this shield is weakened through selective enforcement or speculative invocation of enforcement powers, it is not merely the lawyer or the client who suffers—it is the very idea of justice that is compromised. Rushda Khan is a financial crimes lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of India.
India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump says US may send Patriot missiles to Ukraine
US President Donald Trump suggested the United States could provide Patriot missile defense systems to Ukraine, acknowledging Kyiv's urgent need for advanced weapons as Russia continues its aerial a news conference at the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Trump offered an unusual warmth as he responded to a reporter from the BBC's Ukrainian service. The journalist, who mentioned she was living abroad with her children while her husband served in Ukraine's military, asked whether the US would consider supplying Patriots to rough stuff, right?" Trump responded. "We're going to see if we can make some available. They're very hard to get, we need them too. We were supplying them to Israel." Trump praised the American-made air defense system, calling it '100% effective' and adding: 'Hard to believe how effective. They do want that more than any other thing.'WHAT IS PATRIOT MISSILE SYSTEM?The Patriot, which stands for Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept on Target, is the US Army's premier surface-to-air missile defense to counter a wide range of aerial threats, it is capable of detecting, tracking, and neutralizing tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and advanced aircraft at various altitudes and under all weather Patriot system is combat-proven, having been deployed by the United States and its allies for several decades. It was first used operationally during the 1991 Gulf War, where it gained global attention, and later saw further action during the 2003 invasion of has repeatedly appealed to Western allies for the advanced US-made missile defense systems, which are capable of shooting down Russian cruise missiles and drones. While the Biden administration has sent some Patriots and encouraged others to follow suit, many NATO countries remain hesitant to deplete their own his comments, Trump highlighted that the systems were in high demand globally. 'They do want to have the antimissile missiles, OK, as they call them, the Patriots,' he said. 'And we're going to see if we can make some available.'While Trump used much of his time to criticize the American media, he shifted tone when addressing the Ukrainian journalist, calling her question 'very good.'"I wish you a lot of luck, I mean, I can see it's very upsetting to you," Trump told her. "Say hello to your husband."Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the summit but stopped short of endorsing Ukraine's stalled NATO membership bid, something his administration previously blocked. Trump instead suggested that increased military spending by NATO members could help deter future Russian aggression.- EndsTune InMust Watch
