Titles of the Dutch Royals

[meeralakshmi]

You also need to look at the national circumstances. The direction in the Netherlands is less titles, not more titles (Constantijn's children are count(esse)s, while the previous generation were princes). What you are suggesting is not gender equality but giving spouses of princesses titles in their own rights, which spouses of princes never had! So if anything, it is more likely that their spouses and children will be untitled; which could be applied to future generations as well.

I’m only suggesting that they treat Alexia and Ariane’s spouses and kids the same way they treated Friso and Constantijn’s. If a prince’s wife can receive the courtesy title of Princess (her own name) there’s no reason a princess’ husband can’t. I was thinking that Alexia and Ariane’s kids would be counts/countesses of Orange-Nassau like Friso and Constantijn’s.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Since the title of count/countess of Orange-Nassau is currently only inheritable through the male line I wonder if they’ll make an exception for the children of Alexia and Ariane (so they’ll gain the title of count/countess of Orange-Nassau through their mothers but it’ll only pass through the male line in future generations). Either that or they may do something similar to what they did with the children of Princess Margriet though that seems less likely.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

What you are suggesting is not gender equality but giving spouses of princesses titles in their own rights, which spouses of princes never had!

Maxima was created a princess in her own right.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Maxima was created a princess in her own right.

I’m not arguing for giving spouses of princesses titles in their own right but giving them courtesy titles like the wives of princes receive.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Maxima was created a princess in her own right.

Máxima was also created a princess in her own right because she married the future king. Her official title is HRH The Princess of the Netherlands (the female equivalent of the title held by the husbands of the previous three consecutive queens regnant) but she has the courtesy title and style of HM Queen Máxima (not HM The Queen of the Netherlands).

 

[meeralakshmi]

In my opinion they should at least give future prince consorts the courtesy style of His Majesty if they don’t want to use the title king consort.

 

[Mbruno]

Since the title of count/countess of Orange-Nassau is currently only inheritable through the male line I wonder if they’ll make an exception for the children of Alexia and Ariane (so they’ll gain the title of count/countess of Orange-Nassau through their mothers but it’ll only pass through the male line in future generations). Either that or they may do something similar to what they did with the children of Princess Margriet though that seems less likely.

Alexia and Ariane are not countesses of Orange-Nassau. They are princesses of Orange-Nassau, which is a personal title that cannot be transmitted to one's descendants.

If a decision is made to ennoble Alexia's or Ariane's children, that will have to be done by separate royal decrees. I think there is a good chance though that they may remain untitled.

 

[Stefan]

Alexia and Ariane are not countesses of Orange-Nassau. They are princesses of Orange-Nassau, which is a personal title that cannot be transmitted to one's descendants.

But Constantijn is all no Count of Oranhe-Nassau

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But Constantijn is all no Count of Oranhe-Nassau

Constantijn and Laurentien’s children were ennobled by a Royal Decree of May 11, 2001, signed a few days before their wedding:

Artikel 1.

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.​

Translation:

Article 1.

The family name of the children who may be born from the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Constantijn Christof Frederik Aschwin of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer of Amsberg to Petra Laurentien Brinkhorst is "of Orange-Nassau of Amsberg", with the title of Count and the predicate of Jonkheer.

They shall be: Count (Countess) of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer (Jonkvrouw) of Amsberg.​

It may or may not be possible to likewise ennoble Alexia and Ariane’s children. The current version of the Nobility Act of 1994 only allows ennoblement in the cases of members and former members of the Royal House.

Under the current Royal House Membership Act of 2002, membership of the Royal House is restricted. If Alexia or Ariane’s children are not born from a marriage contracted with the permission of Parliament, their children will not be members of the Royal House, and cannot be ennobled. If their children are born after Willem-Alexander has abdicated or died, they will not be members of the Royal House, and cannot be ennobled.

 

[Stefan]

Constantijn and Laurentien’s children were ennobled by a Royal Decree of May 11, 2001, signed a few days before their wedding:

​

Under the current Royal House Membership Act of 2002, membership of the Royal House is restricted. If Alexia or Ariane’s children are not born from a marriage contracted with the permission of Parliament, their children will not be members of the Royal House, and cannot be ennobled. If their children are born after Willem-Alexander has abdicated or died, they will not be members of the Royal House, and cannot be ennobled.

If i remember right in the case of Prince Friso was enobled short before his marriage when he was still a member of the Royal House and therefore his daughters became Countess of Orange-Nassau.
They same could be done if Princess Alexia or Princess Ariane would marry without permission of Parliament

 

[Somebody]

Maxima was created a princess in her own right.

True, but that only applies to spouses of the heir (male or female) not to any of their siblings.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If i remember right in the case of Prince Friso was enobled short before his marriage when he was still a member of the Royal House and therefore his daughters became Countess of Orange-Nassau

Yes, that’s right.

Hebben goedgevonden en verstaan:

Artikel 1.

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.

Hij zal met ingang van het tijdstip van de voltrekking van zijn voorgenomen huwelijk zijn: Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Johan Friso Bernhard Christiaan David van Oranje-Nassau, graaf van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg.​

Translation:

Have consented and determined:

Article 1.

to permit His Royal Highness Prince Johan Friso Bernhard Christiaan David of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer of Amsberg to retain the title Prince of Orange-Nassau as a personal title with the personal predicate of Royal Highness, to confer on him the hereditary title of count, and to establish "of Orange-Nassau of Amsberg" as his family name.

From the moment of the solemnization of his intended marriage, he shall be: His Royal Highness Prince Johan Friso Bernhard Christiaan David of Orange-Nassau, Count of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer of Amsberg.

​

Staatsblad 2004, 126 | Overheid.nl > Officiële bekendmakingen

zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl

However, Friso was a man, and Alexia and Ariane are women. Per the ordinary laws of nobility in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, only men (and trans women, who for the purpose of nobiliary law are treated as men) may transmit noble titles to their offspring. Normally, a Count’s children are Counts and Countesses, but a Countess’s children are untitled if their father is untitled.

Would it be legally permitted to create a Countess title with special rules allowing Alexia and Ariane to transmit it to their children? I don’t know, but perhaps the Dutch posters will.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Thus, if Dutch nobleman Count Claus-Casimir of Orange-Nassau of Amsberg married a commoner named Johanna de Vries, she would legally remain an untitled commoner, and her legal surname would remain de Vries, but she could be socially addressed as Countess Claus-Casimir of Orange-Nassau of Amsberg.

Pretty sure she would be addressed as Countess Johanna of Orange-Nassau as every other woman who received a title via marriage became Princess (her own name). Her full title and style would be Her Highborn Lady Countess Johanna of Orange-Nassau, Mrs. van Amsberg (you can’t become a jonkvrouwe via marriage).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Pretty sure she would be addressed as Countess Johanna of Orange-Nassau as every other woman who received a title via marriage became Princess (her own name). Her full title and style would be Her Highborn Lady Countess Johanna of Orange-Nassau, Mrs. van Amsberg (you can’t become a jonkvrouwe via marriage).

Yes, you're absolutely right, and I've corrected the post. I was mistakenly thinking of Belgium, which has essentially the same system but is a bilingual country with French and Dutch speakers. The Francophone Belgian nobility uses the "Countess (husband's name)" custom.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Note that this 'social use' is also registered by the government. At the deposition for marriage a couple is asked to indicate how each of them wants to be addressed (including by the government) after marriage - although it is indicated that the legal family name doesn't change after marriage.

True, and it does blur the lines a bit. Still, even the government-registered form of address is conceptually equivalent to borrowing the spouse’s surname to use, rather than changing one’s true legal family name, isn’t it?

What about titles of nobility? Is the social use of a spouse’s noble title also registered by the government? Is it gender-neutral? For example, if the Royal Family wanted a husband of Countess Eloise of Orange-Nassau, Jonkvrouw of Amsberg to be socially addressed as Count Jan of Orange-Nassau, Mr. of Amsberg, would that be possible?

 

[Somebody]

The surname wouldn't be an issue - as each spouse has four options for registered use:
1) surname of self
2) surname of spouse
3) surname of spouse-surname of self (hyphenated)
4) surname of self-surname of spouse (hyphenated)

Most common remains:
husband: surname of self (option 1);
wife: surname of spouse-surname of self (option 3) - although option 1 is on the rise
Option 2 is very rare and option 4 is uncommon as well - the only examples I know of are couples deciding to have the same hyphenated surname (in which case for one of them it will be option 3 and for the other option 4); or those marrying someone from a country where option 4 is common in case of hyphenated surnames.

However, as you pointed out, the legal name on your passport remains the same (however, it will indicate 'wife of 'surname husband'' or 'husband of 'surname wife'' if you so choose).

I cannot find any information about the (social/registered) use of titles by spouses in the nobility law ('Wet op de adeldom').

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you for your answer, Somebody.

Pardon the slightly off-topic question, but why is it that Option 2 (registering to be officially addressed by your spouse's surname) is rare? According to a 1995 survey, 55% of Dutch married people stated at the time that the wife used (only) her husband's name, so wouldn't it be more convenient to be addressed in the same manner by the government? Or have customs changed considerably since 1995?

 

[Somebody]

Interesting. There is indeed a difference in social practice and in what is officially registered; the more informal, the less likely the full name is used. So, while 'on paper' most married women use both names (hyphenated), in speech (and sometimes in other contexts) often only the first of the two names is used; which is the husband's surname. For example, whenever a couple is addressed they would for example say 'Jan & Jannie de Vries' and not 'Jan de Vries and Jannie de Vries-Jansen' (nor 'Jan & Jannie de Vries-Jansen'). And Jannie will most likely introduce herself as 'Jannie de Vries' when she meets someone but would write her name in full as 'Jannie de Vries-Jansen' on an official document. So, probably the difference in what is officially registered and the mixed daily use might explain the difference.

I'd love to find some more reliable data but so far the information I found seems some what contradictory. Some sources say that women taking their husband's name (which includes the customary hyphenated version) is on the rise, while others indicate that women keeping their birth name is on the rise.

All in all, it seems unlikely that the custom changed massively in the direction from the sole use of birth name husband to hyphenated name (as hyphenation has been the custom for a long time). An important change that did happen since 1995 is that men now (since 1998) are allowed to also register the 'birth name' of their spouse as their (registered) surname - or hyphenate their names (again: more likely if they would be so inclined). Moreover, while previously, the naming customs were more or less 'automatic', nowadays, it is is more of a decision that a couple has to make.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interesting. There is indeed a difference in social practice and in what is officially registered; the more informal, the less likely the full name is used. So, while 'on paper' most married women use both names (hyphenated), in speech (and sometimes in other contexts) often only the first of the two names is used; which is the husband's surname. For example, whenever a couple is addressed they would for example say 'Jan & Jannie de Vries' and not 'Jan de Vries and Jannie de Vries-Jansen' (nor 'Jan & Jannie de Vries-Jansen'). And Jannie will most likely introduce herself as 'Jannie de Vries' when she meets someone but would write her name in full as 'Jannie de Vries-Jansen' on an official document. So, probably the difference in what is officially registered and the mixed daily use might explain the difference.

I'd love to find some more reliable data but so far the information I found seems some what contradictory. Some sources say that women taking their husband's name (which includes the customary hyphenated version) is on the rise, while others indicate that women keeping their birth name is on the rise.

All in all, it seems unlikely that the custom changed massively in the direction from the sole use of birth name husband to hyphenated name (as hyphenation has been the custom for a long time). An important change that did happen since 1995 is that men now (since 1998) are allowed to also register the 'birth name' of their spouse as their (registered) surname - or hyphenate their names (again: more likely if they would be so inclined). Moreover, while previously, the naming customs were more or less 'automatic', nowadays, it is is more of a decision that a couple has to make.

Thank you for your explanation, Somebody, and thank you for searching for more recent data. The Dutch system wherein the average married woman may be Jannie Jansen on her identification papers, Jannie de Vries-Jansen on official and unofficial correspondence, and Jannie de Vries in verbal conversation (out of curiosity: what would most women use at work?) is much more complicated than the Anglo system where she would be Jannie de Vries to one and all, so your explanation is much appreciated.

It seems odd that there is contradictory survey data about trends in name choices, but perhaps that complexity is why – perhaps it is becoming more common to use “maiden name only” in certain situations but also becoming more common to use “husband’s name only” in others? Or it may be something else altogether.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Indeed Pieter was the first 'commoner' to marry into the royal family and he didn't get a title upon marriage (as i understand it because then Q.Juliana was not a fan of titles).

Juliana considered making Pieter a prince of the Netherlands but didn’t because she was worried about setting a precedent. He expressed that he felt it was unfair that his wife and children were princes and princesses but he wasn’t.

That was a quote from the biography of former olitician Barend Biesheuvel, but in a later reaction Pieter stated he couldn't remember that that happened and didn't think it plausibel that it had Pieter van Vollenhoven - Wikipedia

Here is the direct quote from Pieter van Vollenhoven in the “Mooie Barend” biography of Barend Biesheuvel by Wilfred Scholten:

“Het is een oud punt. Er zijn discussies geweest dat het, zeker in het buitenland, een rare indruk kon maken dat kinderen een titel zouden hebben die de vader niet bezat. Maar titels zijn een familiezaak. In de familie was niemand voor mijn komst, behalve koningin Juliana. En die was tegen titels. Dat was vanaf onze verloving in maart 1965 een fait accompli. Het lijkt mij hoogst merkwaardig dat ik dan een jaar later nog naar Biesheuvel zou zijn gestapt. Ik kan mij er in elk geval niets van herinneren.”​

Claus prins? Dan ik ook, zei Pieter van Vollenhoven

Pieter van Vollenhoven wilde in 1966 prins worden, net als zijn zwager Claus. Hij vroeg dit aan toenmalig vicepremier Barend Biesheuvel. Dat blijkt uit aantekeningen van Biesheuvel, waaruit historicus Wilfred Scholten citeert in de gisteren verschenen biografie Mooie Barend.

www.volkskrant.nl

I think his statement would translate into English as follows, but there is one sentence - “In de familie was niemand voor mijn komst” - which I am not sure is translated correctly. I would appreciate clarification from the Dutch speakers here.

“It’s an old point. There were discussions that it could, abroad certainly, create an odd impression when the children would have a title that the father didn’t possess. But titles are a family matter. In the family, no one was in favor of me coming in (?), except Queen Juliana. And she was against titles. That was a fait accompli since my engagement in March 1965. It would seem very strange to me if I would gone to Biesheuvel a year later. At least, I can’t remember any of it.”​

So what Pieter denied was the story that he complained to Bisheuvel in 1966 (and even so, he allows that he might have done so and forgotten about it, though he thinks that is very unlikely). He was neither denying nor confirming that he felt it was unfair he did not share his wife’s and sons’ title.

However, based solely on the quote, my impression is that he does justifiably consider it unfair. If he agreed with Queen Juliana’s decision to leave him untitled, he could easily have said something such as “I would never have said that to Bisheuvel, since I never wanted a title / since it’s obvious men shouldn’t take their wives’ titles”.

However, what Pieter actually stated was that he did not receive a title because of the feelings of Queen Juliana and other family members – and that his not sharing his wife’s title might be perceived as odd by foreigners. Those do not sound like the words of a person who endorses the queen’s decision.

 

[Marengo]

Pieter is always full of praise for his late mother-in-law, who indeed was the only one who supported him. Even his own mother had her reservations due to the difference in rank.

Coincidently I bought the book on Biesheuvel this weekend! It says that it was Juliana who called Biesheuvel on March 14th 1966, a few days after Beatrix' wedding. She wanted to discuss 'difficulties' around the upcoming wedding. Biesheuvel and his cabinet were busy for weeks with the matter. In the cabinet only Defense Minister Piet de Jong (a year later Prime Minister, in the 50/ties he was an aide-de-camp to Juliana) was in favour. The Queen was against, she thought it was oldfashioned and un-Dutch.

Pieter held a plea (the book is not clear when, but I assume at an earlier stage) to prime minister Cals and minister of state Beel, without result. After that he turned to Biesheuvel. Biesheuvel was sympathetic but told him: 'you fell in love with the wrong girl. he did not mind Pieter being a commoner "he was a decent young man from a decent family" but he did admit that he might have felt differently had Pieter married the heiress.

Pieter telephoned Biesheuvel on March 15th (a day after Juliana) and wanted to meet Biesheuvel the same day. They met at the ministery. Biesheuvel noted that until that stage Pieter never thought about a title but because of Beatrix' wedding to Claus he started to think differently. Claus was accepted as a Prince by the people, why wouldn't that be the case for him? 'Claus yes, me not'. Biesheuvel spoke again to Beel and to Juliana but the outcome was not changed, even though the children would be princes.

Note that in 1998 the diary of PM Cals became public. And there it was also said that it was Juliana who stopped the title for Pieter, while he tried to insist on it. In 1998 Pieter wrote a letter where he denied having lobbied for a title, and says that it was twisting facts.

In 1999 Biesheuvel did an interview with a newspaper and mentioned the lack of title for Pieter was 'discrimination'. A word supposedly used by Pieter in 1966 as well.

Biesheuvel and Pieter became friends. At Pieter's 60th birthday Biesheuvel made a speech where he said that Pieter never became a Prince and that Pieter and his wife never wanted that in the first place: 'it was your own decision, after confidential councils with good friends.'

A year later he told Pieter's biographer Dorine Hermans that at one point Pieter and Margriet preferred a title, but not in the pushy and lobbying way as has been described by the Volkskrant. It had to be regarded in the negative light with which Pieter was received at court, and they were wondering how he could keep himself standing in such an environment, doesn't he need to have a certain status for that? Not to be treated as a second rate character? Hermans said that after these revelations -slip of the tongue perhaps- Biesheuvel closed like an oyster, as if he had said too much.

The reality is that he was treated as a second rate character for years and he had a difficult personal time, especially in the 1970s.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Pieter is always full of praise for his late mother-in-law, who indeed was the only one who supported him. Even his own mother had her reservations due to the difference in rank.

Coincidently I bought the book on Biesheuvel this weekend! It says that it was Juliana who called Biesheuvel on March 14th 1966, a few days after Beatrix' wedding. She wanted to discuss 'difficulties' around the upcoming wedding. Biesheuvel and his cabinet were busy for weeks with the matter. In the cabinet only Defense Minister Piet de Jong (a year later Prime Minister, in the 50/ties he was an aide-de-camp to Juliana) was in favour. The Queen was against, she thought it was oldfashioned and un-Dutch.

Pieter held a plea (the book is not clear when, but I assume at an earlier stage) to prime minister Cals and minister of state Beel, without result. After that he turned to Biesheuvel. Biesheuvel was sympathetic but told him: 'you fell in love with the wrong girl. he did not mind Pieter being a commoner "he was a decent young man from a decent family" but he did admit that he might have felt differently had Pieter married the heiress.

Pieter telephoned Biesheuvel on March 15th (a day after Juliana) and wanted to meet Biesheuvel the same day. They met at the ministery. Biesheuvel noted that until that stage Pieter never thought about a title but because of Beatrix' wedding to Claus he started to think differently. Claus was accepted as a Prince by the people, why wouldn't that be the case for him? 'Claus yes, me not'. Biesheuvel spoke again to Beel and to Juliana but the outcome was not changed, even though the children would be princes.

Note that in 1998 the diary of PM Cals became public. And there it was also said that it was Juliana who stopped the title for Pieter, while he tried to insist on it. In 1998 Pieter wrote a letter where he denied having lobbied for a title, and says that it was twisting facts.

In 1999 Biesheuvel did an interview with a newspaper and mentioned the lack of title for Pieter was 'discrimination'. A word supposedly used by Pieter in 1966 as well.

Biesheuvel and Pieter became friends. At Pieter's 60th birthday Biesheuvel made a speech where he said that Pieter never became a Prince and that Pieter and his wife never wanted that in the first place: 'it was your own decision, after confidential councils with good friends.'

A year later he told Pieter's biographer Dorine Hermans that at one point Pieter and Margriet preferred a title, but not in the pushy and lobbying way as has been described by the Volkskrant. It had to be regarded in the negative light with which Pieter was received at court, and they were wondering how he could keep himself standing in such an environment, doesn't he need to have a certain status for that? Not to be treated as a second rate character? Hermans said that after these revelations -slip of the tongue perhaps- Biesheuvel closed like an oyster, as if he had said too much.

The reality is that he was treated as a second rate character for years and he had a difficult personal time, especially in the 1970s.

Thank you very much for sharing so many details from the book. (And my apologies for misspelling Mr. Biesheuvel’s name several times in my previous post.)

Ordinarily, I would take the principal at their word, but given the conflicting accounts, I’m inclined to trust the former Prime Minister’s diary and the more unguarded comments that Biesheuvel let slip to Hermans over the statements carefully prepared for public consumption.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I think it's fine for the Netherlands to continue treating their male and female consorts equally by making them prince/princess consorts (so no courtesy title of HM Queen (name) for future female consorts like they gave Máxima) as long as they give their prince/princess consorts the style of HM. Apparently if you're an HRH you only need to bow/curtsy to an HM, not another HRH even if they're a consort which is why there are examples of princesses curtsying to queen consorts but not prince consorts (such as Claus not receiving curtsies but Máxima receiving them but only because of her courtesy title, if she only had her official title of HRH The Princess of the Netherlands she wouldn't receive any curtsies). Therefore I think a consort of a king/queen should have the style of HM whether they're a king/queen consort or prince/princess consort so all consorts of kings/queens have equal rank and precedence. However if they were to decide that spouses of female royals can receive courtesy titles as I've suggested there would be a case for the spouse of a queen receiving the courtesy title of HM King/Queen (name).