Titles of the Dutch Royals

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Thank you for the information! But what I meant was that, according to the Royal Decree, the title is "graaf/gravin" and not "graaf/gravin van Oranje-Nassau" and the predicate is "jonkheer/jonkvrouw" and not "jonkheer/jonkvrouw van Amsberg", which I believe is in accordance with Dutch practice.

Surname: Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg
Title: graaf/gravin van Oranje-Nassau
Predicate: jonkheer/jonkvrouw van Amsberg

But Dutch name law only allows the use of a title in combination with the surname. See the official list from the Hoge Raad van Adel and search for Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

https://www.hogeraadvanadel.nl/adel/...lijke-families

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Surname: Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg
Title: graaf/gravin van Oranje-Nassau
Predicate: jonkheer/jonkvrouw van Amsberg

But Dutch name law only allows the use of a title in combination with the surname. See the official list from the Hoge Raad van Adel and search for Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

https://www.hogeraadvanadel.nl/adel/...lijke-families

I understand that the title is always used in combination with the surname, but I'm afraid I don't understand the basis for the statement that "van Oranje-Nassau" is included in the title. The list fom the Hoge Raad van Adel also lists "graaf" rather than "graaf van Oranje-Nassau" as the "noble title".

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I understand that the title is always used in combination with the surname, but I'm afraid I don't understand the basis for the statement that "van Oranje-Nassau" is included in the title. The list fom the Hoge Raad van Adel also lists "graaf" rather than "graaf van Oranje-Nassau" as the "noble title".

You can not be a baron of a graaf on itself. It is always in combination with a given surname.
An example: the Dutch family De Riquet de Caraman, which continues in Belgium. Not only is there a difference in surname for the very same family, also the Dutch have only designated the head as prins, where the Belgians were more generous and applied this on the whole senior branch.

According the Dutch Royal Decree:

Surname
de Riquet de Caraman

The head
Philippe de Riquet de Caraman, prins van Chimay

The rest
de Riquet graaf (gravin) de Caraman


According the Belgian Royal Decree:

Surname
de Riquet de Caraman-Chimay

The head
Philippe de Riquet de Caraman-Chimay, prins van Chimay

Senior branch
de Riquet prins (prinses) de Caraman-Chimay

Junior branch
de Riquet graaf (gravin) de Caraman-Chimay

[Tatiana Maria]

What I have been attempting to say is that, to the best of my understanding, "graaf van Oranje-Nassau" is not a title, but a combination of the title "graaf" and the surname "van Oranje-Nassau".

In Belgium, a title is not connected to a given surname.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

You can not be a baron of a graaf on itself. It is always in combination with a given surname.
An example: the Dutch princely family De Riquet de Caraman continues in Belgium.

According the Dutch Royal Decree:
- surname = de Riquet de Caraman
- the head of the family = de Riquet de Caraman, prins van Chimay
- the rest of the family = de Riquet, graaf (gravin) de Caraman

According the Belgian Royal Decree (acknowledging the existing Dutch nobility):
- surname = de Riquet de Caraman-Chimay
- the senior branch = de Riquet prins (prinses) de Caraman-Chimay
- the junior branches = de Riquet graaf (gravin) de Caraman-Chimay

In the Netherlands:
Elie de Riquet de Caraman, prins van Chimay (head)
Philippe de Riquet graaf de Caraman (son)

In Belgium:
Elie de Riquet de Caraman-Chimay, prins van Chimay (head)
Philippe de Riquet prins de Caraman-Chimay (son)

Is the style for names of Belgian noblemen the same in Dutch and in French ?

For example, do you say in French :

Patrick comte d’Udekem d’Acoz

Or

Comte Patrick d’Udekem d’Acoz ?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

What I have been attempting to say is that, to the best of my understanding, "graaf van Oranje-Nassau" is not a title, but a combination of the title "graaf" and the surname "van Oranje-Nassau".

In Belgium, a title is not connected to a given surname.

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.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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]

Originally Posted by JR76

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]

Originally Posted by Somebody

.
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]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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...-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...-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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-r...ce-friso/title

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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-r...ce-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]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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-r...ce-friso/title

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

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by lucien

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]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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).