Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, discussions about Dutch identity (perceived or otherwise) have been in the spotlight. On Monday, September 24, 2007, then-Princess Máxima gave a speech at the presentation of the report Identification with the Netherlands by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR). National stereotypes were wrong by definition, she observed. As a country, the Netherlands was too multifaceted “to be captured in one cliché. 'The Dutch identity? No, I haven't found it.' From that, she concluded, “THE Dutchman does not exist. Máxima's speech contained no earth-shattering details. But the challenged statement was highly sensitive at a time when nationality and national identity were under a magnifying glass. It is tempting to attribute the negative reactions to the “The Dutchman does not exist” statement to a “lack of knowledge” among the general public or the desire of politicians to score in the media. Of course, these factors will have played a role, but this article addresses the question of whether things did not go wrong on a much more fundamental level, that of the conceptual framework used. This implies that researchers should also examine themselves. First, an impression is given of the public reception of Máxima's speech. Next, cultural science discussions of national identity are discussed. Then the WRR report and speech are placed within the context of these discussions. There was nothing earth-shattering in the WRR report, as long as you read the text as a constructivist researcher in this field. However, the committee members failed to indicate that they were reasoning from a specific point of view, namely the constructivist one. This is a legitimate choice academically, but Máxima was thus given insufficient background knowledge to take a clear stand. After all, the Dutchman does exist in some sense. If the vast majority of the Dutch population identifies with the “national identity,” then it is not merely fictitious or purely subjective. As long as a ...