Titles of the Dutch Royals

[JR76]

In the Netherlands it is. That's why someone who is the child of a count will not be a count(ess) him/herself if the parents would decide that the child would use their mother's surname.

Oh, now I get it! So if children of say, Count Breda is to have noble status they must carry the surname Breda but if their parents decide for them to carry their mother's surname Haag they won't be noble?
Interesting, here in Sweden there are several instances where male-line descendants of the nobility living both in the country and abroad (often USA or Germany) carry a different surname but is still thought of as members of the nobility.

 

[Somebody]

Oh, now I get it! So if children of say, Count Breda is to have noble status they must carry the surname Breda but if their parents decide for them to carry their mother's surname Haag they won't be noble?
Interesting, here in Sweden there are several instances where male-line descendants of the nobility living both in the country and abroad (often USA or Germany) carry a different surname but is still thought of as members of the nobility.

Exactly. The title is inseparably linked to the surname. 'Adel in Nederland' explains this in their FAQs.

On the other hand, it is possible for the mother to pass on her 'noble' surname but without the title, so that part of the family won't be noble.

 

[JR76]

.
On the other hand, it is possible for the mother to pass on her 'noble' surname but without the title, so that part of the family won't be noble.

That's the same as here. One of my brother's best friends has his mother's noble surname but not her status.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In the Netherlands it is. That's why someone who is the child of a count will not be a count(ess) him/herself if the parents would decide that the child would use their mother's surname.

Thanks, that was my understanding of Duc_et_Pair's explanation. In Belgium, however, it works differently: The legitimate child of a count (assuming that his title is hereditary) is a count(ess) even if they use their mother's surname. Les titres de noblesse sont associés à la personne, pas au nom - La Libre

By the way, are Dutch noble titles withheld from children who use their mother's surname based on name law or nobility law?



But about the topic of whether "van Oranje-Nassau" is a title or a surname: As I understand it, "van Oranje-Nassau" is not a component of the noble title, even though it is inseparable from it. The Royal Decrees and the Hoge Raad van Adel all specify "graaf" as the title, not "graaf van Oranje-Nassau".


Children of Prince Constantijn

De geslachtsnaam van de kinderen die geboren mochten worden uit het huwelijk van Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Constantijn Christof Frederik Aschwin der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg met Petra Laurentien Brinkhorst luidt «van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg», met de titel graaf en het predikaat jonkheer.

Zij zullen zijn: graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer (jonkvrouwe) van Amsberg.

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2001-227.html

Prince Friso

Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Johan Friso Bernhard Christiaan David der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg de titel Prins van Oranje-Nassau te laten behouden als persoonlijke titel met het persoonlijke predikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid, hem de erfelijke titel graaf te verlenen en als zijn geslachtsnaam «van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg» vast te stellen.

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2004-126.html

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The most important part is the surname. That is Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg. In fact a new title was created: graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau (Royal Decrees 2001 and 2004). The predicate jonkheer (jonkvrouw) van Amsberg was already existing (Royal Decree 1966).

The four ladies and the one gentleman with the surname Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg use their title (which has precedence over a predicate) in combination with their surname. It is inseparable. They can not change the surname without loosing the title.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An example.

By Royal Decree in 1986 a change of surname was established for the siblings Andreas George graaf Festetics de Tolna (1968) and Dominique Viola gravin Festetics de Tolna (1971). Both were minors at the time. Their mother Viola Sophie Fraterman née Kolisch formerly gravin Festetics de Tolna (1946) requested the children to be known with her second husband's surname.

By Royal Decree in 1991 another change of surname was established for the siblings Andreas George Fraterman (1968) and Dominique Viola Fraterman (1971). Both were adults at the time and requested to be known with surname and title of their natural father Dénes Sámuel Imre graaf Festetics de Tolna (1943).

In between 1986 and 1991 the nobility of these two siblings was "dormant".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The most important part is the surname. That is Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg. In fact a new title was created: graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau (Royal Decrees 2001 and 2004). The predicate jonkheer (jonkvrouw) van Amsberg was already existing (Royal Decree 1966).

The four ladies and the one gentleman with the surname Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg use their title (which has precedence over a predicate) in combination with their surname. It is inseparable. They can not change the surname without loosing the title.

Yes, I understand and agree with the bolded sentences. But "inseparable" is not "the same as". The Royal Decrees (see my previous post) clearly say "the title count", not "the title count of Orange-Nassau", and "the predicate jonkheer", not "the predicate jonkheer van Amsberg". "Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg" is the inseparable surname, not the title or the predicate.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes, I understand and agree with the bolded sentences. But "inseparable" is not "the same as". The Royal Decrees (see my previous post) clearly say "the title count", not "the title count of Orange-Nassau", and "the predicate jonkheer", not "the predicate jonkheer van Amsberg". "Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg" is the inseparable surname, not the title or the predicate.

I understand the confusion, but it really is graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg. It is confirmed on the website of the Royal House (in English): https://www.royal-house.nl/members-royal-house/in-memoriam/prince-friso/title

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I understand the confusion, but it really is graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg. It is confirmed on the website of the Royal House (in English): https://www.royal-house.nl/members-royal-house/in-memoriam/prince-friso/title

Thanks, I appreciate the source. There are indeed discrepancies between the website and the Royal Decrees: The website not only says that "van Oranje-Nassau" is included in the title, but it additionally says that "jonkheer van Amsberg" is a title, whereas according to the Royal Decrees "jonkheer" (without "van Amsberg") is a predicate.

 

[lucien]

I understand the confusion, but it really is graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg. It is confirmed on the website of the Royal House (in English): https://www.royal-house.nl/members-royal-house/in-memoriam/prince-friso/title

Oh dear,it's all about stirring up the obvious isn't it...Cucumber time pour tout le monde...

 

[Mbruno]

Oh dear,it's all about stirring up the obvious isn't it...Cucumber time pour tout le monde...

Actually that English site confused me . I thought Prince Friso’s daughters were “countess of Orange-Nassau, jonkvrouw van Amsberg”. The site says, however, that they are “ countess van Orange-Nassau van Amsberg”. Which one is correct ?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Actually that English site confused me . I thought Prince Friso’s daughters were “countess of Orange-Nassau, jonkvrouw van Amsberg”. The site says, however, that they are “ countess van Orange-Nassau van Amsberg”. Which one is correct ?

De hooggeboren vrouwe Emma Luana Ninette Sophie gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg
De hooggeboren vrouwe Joanna Zaria Nicoline Milou gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg

Note that jonkheer (jonkvrouw) is a predicate for untitled nobility. The two daughters are titled nobility (gravin van Oranje-Nassau 2001/2004) and untitled nobility (jonkvrouw van Amsberg 1966). A title has precedence over a predicate. And a title is always unseparable from the surname.

Look at the surname of their father: picture


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Their father was not known as graaf van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg because his royal title had precedence over his noble title.

It was:

Surname:
van Oranje-Nassau (Royal Decree 1901)

Prefix:
Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid (Royal Decree 1966)

Titles and predicate:
prins der Nederlanden, prins van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg (Royal Decree 1966)



and in 2004 it became:


Surname:
van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg (Royal Decree 2004)

Prefix:
Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid (Royal Decree 1966)

Titles and predicate:
prins van Oranje-Nassau (Royal Decree 1966), graaf van Oranje-Nassau (Royal Decree 2004), jonkheer van Amsberg (Royal Decree 1966)

 

[Mbruno]

De hooggeboren vrouwe Emma Luana Ninette Sophie gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg
De hooggeboren vrouwe Joanna Zaria Nicoline Milou gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg

Note that jonkheer (jonkvrouw) is a predicate for untitled nobility. The two daughters are titled nobility (gravin van Oranje-Nassau 2001/2004) and untitled nobility (jonkvrouw van Amsberg 1966). A title has precedence over a predicate. And a title is always unseparable from the surname.

Look at the surname of their father: picture


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Their father was not known as graaf van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg because his royal title had precedence over his noble title.

It was:

Surname:
van Oranje-Nassau (Royal Decree 1901)

Prefix:
Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid (Royal Decree 1966)

Titles and predicate:
prins der Nederlanden, prins van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg (Royal Decree 1966)



and in 2004 it became:


Surname:
van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg (Royal Decree 2004)

Prefix:
Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid (Royal Decree 1966)

Titles and predicate:
prins van Oranje-Nassau (Royal Decree 1966), graaf van Oranje-Nassau (Royal Decree 2004), jonkheer van Amsberg (Royal Decree 1966)

Are Prince Constantijn's children also graaf/gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg ? If not, what is the difference between them and Prince Friso's daughters ?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Are Prince Constantijn's children also graaf/gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg ? If not, what is the difference between them and Prince Friso's duaghters ?

They have the same title and predicate as their cousines. The difference however is that they do not belong to the Nobility (yet) because until April 2013 they were members of the Royal House, not of the Nobility.

Now that Eloïse, Claus-Casimir and Leonore ceased to be members of the Royal House, I expext the newest Royal Decree with additons and changes to the Adelslijst will involve the three children:

Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg, Eloïse Sophie Beatrix Laurence van (2002)
The title gravin is for herself

Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg, Claus-Casimir Bernhard Marius Max van (2004)
The title graaf (gravin) is for him and is hereditary in the body male

Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg, Leonore Marie Irene Enrica van (2007)
The title gravin is for herself

 

[Somebody]

Does the title of Prince/Princess of Orange also apply now by law to any heir to the Dutch throne (apparent or presumptive) ? Maybe the Dutch posters can clarify. The question may seem unimportant now that the Netherlands uses equal primogeniture, but a situation can still arise in the future where the heir is the King's sibling and, therefore, an heir presumptive only. Again, in Spain, that person, under the royal decree 1368/1987, would become Prince/Princess of Asturias the moment he/she became the heir and would remain so until he/she was displaced by someone else, but would he/she be Prince / Princess of Orange under the same circumstances ?

The title prince(ss) of Orange was reserved for the heir apparent. If not, Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix all would have been princess of Orange before ascending the throne and they weren't as they were 'only' heir presumptive. In this respect, there is no difference between the situation before or after 1983 when equal primogeniture was introduced.

However, the 'wet op het koninklijk huis' (law on the royal house) from 2002 refers to the 'presumed successor' in article 7, so that would include either the heir apparent or the hier presumptive who would be the prince(ss) of Orange.

De vermoedelijke opvolger van de Koning draagt de titel van Prins (Prinses) van Oranje.

Translation:

De presumed successor of the King carries the title of Prince (Princess) of Orange.

Note that the next article (8) states that the only ones who are automatically prince(ss) of the Netherlands (this also applies to the title 'prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau') are the former king and the presumed next king. All others require a royal decree; the 'of the Netherlands' title is restricted to members of the royal house. The 'of Orange-Nassau' title initially is also restricted to members of the royal house but can be kept on a personal basis when a member looses their membership (depending on the royal decree to be issued within 3 months).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I understand the confusion, but it really is graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg. It is confirmed on the website of the Royal House (in English): https://www.royal-house.nl/members-royal-house/in-memoriam/prince-friso/title

Thanks, I appreciate the source. There are indeed discrepancies between the website and the Royal Decrees: The website not only says that "van Oranje-Nassau" is included in the title, but it additionally says that "jonkheer van Amsberg" is a title, whereas according to the Royal Decrees "jonkheer" (without "van Amsberg") is a predicate.

I remain inclined to trust the Royal Decrees over the website regarding the legal definition of the title, given that the decrees are legal documents and the website is not. In Belgium family names are also unofficially referred to as a part of the title, even though from a legal point of view they are not.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Please explain why Nassau-Dillenburg is sometimes placed after Willem's first name.
Willem (Nassau-Dillenburg) van Oranje Nassau

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Please explain why Nassau-Dillenburg is sometimes placed after Willem's first name.
Willem (Nassau-Dillenburg) van Oranje Nassau

I have not seen anyone referring to King Willem-Alexander as a Nassau-Dillenburg, but his ancestor Willem the Silent, from whom all members of the Orange-Nassau dynasty descend, was from a branch of the Nassau family based in Dillenburg.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Please explain why Nassau-Dillenburg is sometimes placed after Willem's first name.
Willem (Nassau-Dillenburg) van Oranje Nassau

Because he was from the Nassau branch which resided on Dillenburg Castle. When Willem I inherited the prestigious sovereign principality of Orange from his cousin René von Nassau-Breda, the House Nassau-Dillenburg became known as Orange-Nassau. From all the many Nassau branches, the comital branch Merenberg is the only one existing and on the brink of extinction with only one lady alive.

Wilhelm Fürst von Nassau-Weilburg, Herzog von Nassau
x Pauline Prinzessin von Württemberg
= Nikolaus

Nikolaus Prinz von Nassau
x Natalia Alexandrovna Pushkina, cr. Gräfin von Merenberg
= Georg Nikolaus

Georg Nikolaus (von Nassau) Graf von Merenberg
x Olga Alexandrovna Romanova, cr Princess Yurjevskaya
= Georg

Georg (von Nassau) Graf von Merenberg
x Elisabeth-Anne Müller-Uri
= Clotilde

Clotilde von Rintelen née (von Nassau) Gräfin von Merenberg (*1941) is the last living Nassau from a legal male-only descendance.

 

[Somebody]

Please explain why Nassau-Dillenburg is sometimes placed after Willem's first name.
Willem (Nassau-Dillenburg) van Oranje Nassau

Can you cite a source? I assume you are referring to the 'first' Willem de Zwijger (William the Silent; the forefather of the royal family) whose family was part of the 'Dillenburg' section of the Nassaus. See for example this explanation on Wikipedia.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

From all the many Nassau branches, the comital branch Nassau-Merenberg is the only one existing and on the brink of extinction.

I presume you meant only the patrilineal Nassau branches, as the branch in Luxembourg is a long distance from extinction.

The counts of Merenberg never were Nassaus (the name "von Nassau-Merenberg" alleged on Wikipedia does not cite any source). Had they been Nassaus, Count Georg of Merenberg rather than Princess Marie-Adelaide of Luxembourg would have become Grand Duke of Luxembourg in 1912 under the Nassau family pact, which before 2011 gave priority to male relatives in patrilineal line (which he was).

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/nassau.htm

 

[Mbruno]

Thanks, that was my understanding of Duc_et_Pair's explanation. In Belgium, however, it works differently: The legitimate child of a count (assuming that his title is hereditary) is a count(ess) even if they use their mother's surname. Les titres de noblesse sont associés à la personne, pas au nom - La Libre

That was not the interpretation ( or the position) , however, of the Association of the Belgian Nobility. In fact, in its submission to the government on the new name law, the ABN explicitly said that, in their opinion, titles of nobility should not be transmitted if the children carried their mother’s name only as surname.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That was not the interpretation ( or the position) , however, of the Association of the Belgian Nobility. In fact, in its submission to the government on the new name law, the ABN explicitly said that, in their opinion, titles of nobility should not be transmitted if the children carried their mother’s name only as surname.

It would be interesting to learn whether the Belgian government concurs with the ABN's position or the position of the specialist cited in the La Libre article. I have been unable to find any information regarding the Belgian government's interpretation. The point would have to be tested if and when a Belgian nobleman registers his child under the mother's name only.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I presume you meant only the patrilineal Nassau branches, as the branch in Luxembourg is a long distance from extinction.

The counts of Merenberg never were Nassaus (the name "von Nassau-Merenberg" alleged on Wikipedia does not cite any source). Had they been Nassaus, Count Georg of Merenberg rather than Princess Marie-Adelaide of Luxembourg would have become Grand Duke of Luxembourg in 1912 under the Nassau family pact, which before 2011 gave priority to male relatives in patrilineal line (which he was).

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/nassau.htm

The counts von Merenberg were 100% Nassaus, but because Natalia Alexandrovna Pushkina was seen as a mésalliance for a Prince of Nassau, the descendants of that marriage were known as Counts and Countesses von Merenberg instead of Princes and Princesses of Nassau.

There has been a big dispute on the succession and the vast House of Nassau wealth when Marie-Adélaïde did succeed the throne of Luxembourg and in the end the Luxembourg Parliament agreed to pay an annual sum of 40.000 gold Marks to the Nassaus, eh... "Merenbergs" as compensation for their lost rights. (Similar to the compensation given to Arveprins Knud and his son Prince Ingolf in Denmark, when they lost their succession rights in the 1950's).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The counts von Merenberg were 100% Nassaus, but because Natalia Alexandrovna Pushkina was seen as a mésalliance for a Prince of Nassau, the descendants of that marriage were known as Counts and Countesses von Merenberg instead of Princes and Princesses of Nassau.

There has been a big dispute on the succession and the vast House of Nassau wealth when Marie-Adélaïde did succeed the throne of Luxembourg and in the end the Luxembourg Parliament agreed to pay an annual sum of 40.000 gold Marks to the Nassaus, eh... "Merenbergs" as compensation for their lost rights. (Similar to the compensation given to Arveprins Knud and his son Prince Ingolf in Denmark, when they lost their succession rights in the 1950's).

According to Luxarazzi's summary, Count Georg of Merenberg's lawsuit was fruitless and his claim of having succession rights was not acknowledged, in spite of the 40,000 gold mark pension.

At the time, there were three officially legal opinions by distinguished scholars. Two of them stated that Count Georg of Merenberg had no right to the grand ducal crown as his parents' marriage was both not equal and lacked the consent of the then head of the House of Nassau, Adolph, and was thus a morganatic one. This stance was also supported by Luxembourg's government and the Council of State. A third legal opinion, however, argued that as the last male descendant, Count Georg's claim to the throne was a stronger one than that of his female cousins born of an equal and approved marriage.

[...] He also filed a suit with German courts in Wiesbaden for the right of disposition of the Nassauisches Hausvermögen, the assets of the Nassau family.

[...] Having lost this battle, Count Georg also abandoned his lawsuit in Germany shortly thereafter. However, he didn't come away empty-handed as he received a yearly pension of 40,000 Goldmark.

Luxarazzi 101: Counts of Merenberg and Their Claim to Luxembourg's Throne

I have not seen any documentation suggesting that the Merenbergs were ever given the Nassau name or membership in the House of Nassau, but if it exists, please correct me.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes, of course it was "fruitless" but he got 40.000 Goldmarks a year (a gold mark was on a gold standard with 2790 marks equal to 1 kilogram of pure gold) which was of course an eye-popping annual capital for those years. They would never have been paid this, were they indeed not male-line Nassaus. That is pretty obvious.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes, of course it was "fruitless" but he got 40.000 Goldmarks a year (a gold mark was on a gold standard with 2790 marks equal to 1 kilogram of pure gold) which was of course an eye-popping annual capital for those years. They would never have been paid this, were they indeed not male-line Nassaus. That is pretty obvious.

If they were indeed male-line Nassaus, they would never been excluded from the throne of Luxembourg. That is according to the rules set down in the 1783 Nassau Family Pact and the 1907 family bylaw, which must be seen as more obvious than a large pension.

Note article 26 and article 42 of the Nassau Family Pact (prior to the amendments in 2011):
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/nassau.htm#26

Furthermore, article 1 of the 1907 Nassau bylaw (before the amendments in 2012)
Mémorial A n° 37 de 1907 - Legilux

Edited to replace the link with the correct one.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It seems to me that the arms of the Princes consort of the Netherlands were introduced into the heartshields of their children because they were men and not women, just as their titles and family names were introduced into those of their children (while Queen Wilhelmina for example never was a Princess of Waldeck and Pyrmont by right of her mother). Three consecutive princes consort was clearly sufficient to turn it into a custom which was followed for Máxima, thus the heartshield of Zorreguieta in her children's arms (although it confuses me why Máxima legally renounced the name Zorreguieta upon marriage instead of transmitting it to her children as the princes consort did).

Máxima renounced nothing. Like Mathilde, or Fabiola, or Paola did not renounce anything. They just have another style, title, name and form of address since their marriage.

Indeed, the Belgian consorts continue to have their maiden names. For instance, Mathilde as a Princess was listed in a Royal Decree as Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, in addition to her royal titles.


In contrast, the name Zorreguieta has disappeared from Máxima's name. Máxima as a Princess was listed in a Royal Decree as

Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid Prinses Máxima der Nederlanden, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, mevrouw van Amsberg​

Furthermore, she filled in as her "last name" in the 2007 census:

Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid Máxima, Prinses der Nederlanden, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, Mevrouw van Amsberg​

On a related note, I also do not understand why "Mevrouw van Amsberg" is included in her legal name, as that title was not conferred on her in her own right (only the titles of Princess of the Netherlands and Princess of Orange-Nassau).

It is true that Máxima's children do not have the surname Zorreguieta. But they also no longer have their father's name Von Amsberg... The Government has given a reason, but this is about the Belgians, so better in another thread.

That is a good reason, if I understand you correctly: Only the name Van Oranje-Nassau will be inherited in the main line from here forward. But then for consistency, why did the Government not likewise decide that only the arms of the House of Orange-Nassau would be inherited by Máxima's children?

 

[Rudolph]

Are Dutch royal arms inheritable? I know British royal arms must be granted anew each time

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Are Dutch royal arms inheritable? I know British royal arms must be granted anew each time

No, they have always been granted with Royal Decrees. A Royal Decree granted a coat of arms to the future children of the then Prince of Orange and Princess Máxima in 2003.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I often wondered why Princess Mabel is not styled Dowager Princess of Orange-Nassau or is that term out of use now by the Dutch Monarchy?