Titles of the Dutch Royals

[Duc_et_Pair]

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?

In the Nobility of the three Benelux countries the word Douairière exists to designate widows of titled gentlemen but it is seldom or never used anymore. Like the word Freule exists to designate unmarried daughters of titled gentlemen but is seldom or never used anymore.

Let me give an example of real persons: Valérie de Guerre (1963) is married to Thomas graaf de Marchant et d'Ansembourg. Since the marriage her most formal style is: de hooggeboren vrouwe Valérie gravin de Marchant et d'Ansembourg - De Guerre

These days, she remains known as such, also when she would become a widow. The same applies to Princess Mabel. Because her husband had a royal title (prins van Oranje-Nassau) and a royal prefix (Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid) her style until an eventual re-marriage is and remains Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid prinses Mabel van Oranje-Nassau.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I had a feeling it would be deemed an out dated style to use in the egalitarian Netherlands.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Here an example:

Op den dood van Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid
Mevrouwe de Princesse-Douairière van Oranje-Nassau
geboren Princesse van Pruisen

( On the death of Her Royal Highness
Madame the Dowager Princess of Orange-Nassau
born Princess of Prussia )

https://books.google.nl/books?id=se...re koninklijke hoogheid de douairière&f=false

These were the traditional laments published when a prominent royal passed away.

Ach God! De groote Vrouw, zoo lang beproefd door leed,
En altijd uit den smeltkroes weêr verrezen,
Wier ongeveinsde deugd gansch Neêrland hulde deed,
Etc. Etc. Etc.

( Ah God! The great Woman, tried so long by suffering,
And always resurrected again from the melting pot,
Whose sincere virtue paid homage to all the Netherlands,
Etc. Etc. Etc. )

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If Queen Juliana had at least two sons and at least one daughter, is it clear what titles the children of her younger sons and the children of her daughters would have received, assuming that the Queen's children all married after 1963 and received permission to marry from Parliament?

I am taking for granted that even in a scenario where Queen Juliana had sons, the succession law would still have been revised in 1963, but please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

 

[Somebody]

If Queen Juliana had at least two sons and at least one daughter, is it clear what titles the children of her younger sons and the children of her daughters would have received, assuming that the Queen's children all married after 1963 and received permission to marry from Parliament?

I am taking for granted that even in a scenario where Queen Juliana had sons, the succession law would still have been revised in 1963, but please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

Are you referring to the succession law of 1983 (so 20 years later!)? I assume that the eldest son would have been the king (even if a daughter would be the eldest child).

I don't think we can say for certain what titles they would have had as things could always change based on circumstances (such as Margriet's children being given personal titles as the children of the 'spare') but theoretically I would say the children of a younger son would have been royal highnesses prince(ss) of the Netherlands, prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau, prince(ss) of Lippe-Biesterfeld. This would follow the example of the titles of the children of prince Frederik, second son of king Willem I; as this prince would himself hold these titles and would be able to pass them on.

Whether in that case they would have felt the need for the children of the daughter to also be titled is questionable. That would most likely have depended on whom they married (another royal or nobleman?) and whether they would have remained in line of succession (it seems they felt the need that those in line to the throne needed to be titled).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If Queen Juliana had at least two sons and at least one daughter, is it clear what titles the children of her younger sons and the children of her daughters would have received, assuming that the Queen's children all married after 1963 and received permission to marry from Parliament?

I am taking for granted that even in a scenario where Queen Juliana had sons, the succession law would still have been revised in 1963, but please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

DECREE of January 8th, 1937, State Gazette 5, concerning the name to be borne by the children of Her Royal Highness Princess Juliana

We WILHELMINA, by the grace of God Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Etc., Etc., Etc.

Desiring that the name of the family from which We originate and to which memories are attached, so dear to Us and to People of the Netherlands, will also be preserved for the children of Our beloved daughter, and considering that this longing is shared by Our daughter and her consort:

On the recommendation of Our Minister of Justice of January 4th, 1937, Cabinet No. 487, H;

Have approved and understood, as We approve and understand herewith:

To consent that the name Orange-Nassau shall be borne by all the children of Our beloved daughter, with and in addition to the name which they take from the family of their father, it being understood that the latter name shall precede the name so that the said children, without prejudice to the title of Prince (Princess) of the Netherlands and their future titles, will be called Prince (Princess) of Orange-Nassau, Prince (Princess) of Lippe-Biesterfeld.

Our Minister of Justice is charged with the implementation of this Decree, which will be published on a date to be determined in the Official Gazette and in the Government Gazette.

The Hague, the 8th of January 1937.

WILHELMINA.

 

[Somebody]

DECREE of January 8th, 1937, State Gazette 5, concerning the name to be borne by the children of Her Royal Highness Princess Juliana

We WILHELMINA, by the grace of God Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Etc., Etc., Etc.

Desiring that the name of the family from which We originate and to which memories are attached, so dear to Us and to People of the Netherlands, will also be preserved for the children of Our beloved daughter, and considering that this longing is shared by Our daughter and her consort:

On the recommendation of Our Minister of Justice of January 4th, 1937, Cabinet No. 487, H;

Have approved and understood, as We approve and understand herewith:

To consent that the name Orange-Nassau shall be borne by all the children of Our beloved daughter, with and in addition to the name which they take from the family of their father, it being understood that the latter name shall precede the name so that the said children, without prejudice to the title of Prince (Princess) of the Netherlands and their future titles, will be called Prince (Princess) of Orange-Nassau, Prince (Princess) of Lippe-Biesterfeld.

Our Minister of Justice is charged with the implementation of this Decree, which will be published on a date to be determined in the Official Gazette and in the Government Gazette.

The Hague, the 8th of January 1937.

WILHELMINA.

Thanks for this. However, Maria Tatiana's question was not about Juliana's children (as we all know what their titles were as that scenario did play out) but about her grandchildren if she had had not only daughters but also (younger) sons (a scenario that did not play out). What is you take on that?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Thanks for this. However, Maria Tatiana's question was not about Juliana's children (as we all know what their titles were as that scenario did play out) but about her grandchildren if she had had not only daughters but also (younger) sons (a scenario that did not play out). What is you take on that?

What did happen to the children of Queen Juliana was repeated for the children of Princess Beatrix. And I assume the title Prince of the Netherlands would be limited to those related to a King within three degrees of consanguity.

This would mean Princes and Princesses of Orange-Nassau, Princes and Princesses of Lippe-Biesterfeld walking around in a junior line.

 

[Somebody]

What did happen to the children of Queen Juliana was repeated for the children of Princess Beatrix. And I assume the title Prince of the Netherlands would be limited to those related to a King within three degrees of consanguity.

This would mean Princes and Princesses of Orange-Nassau, Princes and Princesses of Lippe-Biesterfeld walking around in a junior line.

But they are the children of the heir/monarch, and TM's question was specifically about the younger children. How the Dutch go about titles for children of a female heir is rather clear (although strange enough Willem-Alexander's children didn't get the 'van Amsberg' unlike their cousins).

So, are you saying that you think that unlike previous generations, the children of a prince of the Netherlands (younger son) would not have been given the title 'prince of the Netherlands' in the 60's but only been princes and princesses of Orange-Nassau and Lippe-Biesterfeld? And would their descendants in male-line still be princes and princesses (of both O-N and L-B)? That would make most sense to me but would have created a rather strange situation with Friso's and Constantijn's childeren being mere count(esse)s and grandchildren of a fictional prince Christian (younger son of queen Juliana) being prince(sse)s of Orange-Nassau. Or maybe, they would have decided differently on at least Constantijn's children had that been the case.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But they are the children of the heir/monarch, and TM's question was specifically about the younger children. How the Dutch go about titles for children of a female heir is rather clear (although strange enough Willem-Alexander's children didn't get the 'van Amsberg' unlike their cousins).

So, are you saying that you think that unlike previous generations, the children of a prince of the Netherlands (younger son) would not have been given the title 'prince of the Netherlands' in the 60's but only been princes and princesses of Orange-Nassau and Lippe-Biesterfeld? And would their descendants in male-line still be princes and princesses (of both O-N and L-B)? That would make most sense to me but would have created a rather strange situation with Friso's and Constantijn's childeren being mere count(esse)s and grandchildren of a fictional prince Christian (younger son of queen Juliana) being prince(sse)s of Orange-Nassau. Or maybe, they would have decided differently on at least Constantijn's children had that been the case.

Yes because in 1920 the Constitution was altered so that only descendants of Queen Wilhelmina and no furtherer than three degrees of consanguity can be princes of the Royal House. So the scenario of ongoing unlimited princes of the Netherlands was already not possible. Later in 2002 it was even further limited to two degrees of consanguity of a King.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you both for the interesting discussion. I hope it can continue.

To clarify the succession laws, which potentially affected decisions on titles, and my assumptions about them:

I assume that Queen Juliana having sons and daughters would not have altered the history of the succession laws, and the alterations which took place in our history in 1963 and 1983 would still have taken place in 1963 and 1983 in my hypothetical scenario. Please correct me if that assumption is wrong.

I am also assuming that in the hypothetical scenario, Queen Juliana's children would all have married (with parliamentary permission) and had children after the 1963 alteration but before the 1983 alteration, so that the titles of the Queen's grandchildren might be affected by the changes of 1963 but would definitely not be affected by the changes of 1983.

This is the law of succession as it was from 1963 to 1983:
https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/vi7obqqpnazm

An older sister and her descendants would be superseded by her younger brother and his descendants, but not by further male relatives or their descendants. The line of succession was limited to three degrees of consanguinity of the current monarch. Those who married without acquiring the permission of Parliament lost their right to the throne and their descendants had no place in the line of succession.

The Constitution did not legislate titles or membership of the Royal House.

 

[Somebody]

Thank you both for the interesting discussion. I hope it can continue.

To clarify the succession laws, which potentially affected decisions on titles, and my assumptions about them:

I assume that Queen Juliana having sons and daughters would not have altered the history of the succession laws, and the alterations which took place in our history in 1963 and 1983 would still have taken place in 1963 and 1983 in my hypothetical scenario. Please correct me if that assumption is wrong.

I am also assuming that in the hypothetical scenario, Queen Juliana's children would all have married (with parliamentary permission) and had children after the 1963 alteration but before the 1983 alteration, so that the titles of the Queen's grandchildren might be affected by the changes of 1963 but would definitely not be affected by the changes of 1983.

This is the law of succession as it was from 1963 to 1983:
https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/vi7obqqpnazm

An older sister and her descendants would be superseded by her younger brother and his descendants, but not by further male relatives or their descendants. The line of succession was limited to three degrees of consanguinity of the current monarch. Those who married without acquiring the permission of Parliament lost their right to the throne and their descendants had no place in the line of succession.

The Constitution did not legislate titles or membership of the Royal House.

Thanks for this clarification.

Regarding titles, given that titles for members of the royal house/family were not specifically regulated, my assumption would be that for male-line descendants the 'regular' rules of nobility would apply; i.e., that titles would be passed on in male-line (for children born within legitimate marriages). The reason that a specific decree was required for Juliana and Bernhard's children imo was that they needed to make sure that their children would also (and first) receive their mother's titles. I assume the same was done for Wilhelmina's own children who were not just 'duke/duchess of Mecklenburg'; but first prince(ss) of the Netherlands; and prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau.

Yes because in 1920 the Constitution was altered so that only descendants of Queen Wilhelmina and no furtherer than three degrees of consanguity can be princes of the Royal House. So the scenario of ongoing unlimited princes of the Netherlands was already not possible. Later in 2002 it was even further limited to two degrees of consanguity of a King.

Was the title of 'prince(ss) of the Netherlands' specifically tied to membership of the royal house at that time? I know it is nowadays (it is the reason that prince Friso lost this title upon marriage).

At least at that time being a member of the royal house was tied to being in line of succession to the throne. Since 2002 membership of the royal house and being in line to the throne has been decoupled in that those in three degrees remain in line to the throne but are no longer members of the royal house.

Nonetheless, 3 degrees of consanguity would still mean that great-grandchildren could be prince(ss) of the Netherlands. In practice, the title 'prince(ss) of the Netherlands' with predicate of royal highness has now been reduced to 1st degree to either the monarch or the heir (or most likely the heir's heir if applicable).

 

[Kataryn]

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).

I thought Count Merenberg could not prove his mother had been lawfully divorced before she married the prince of Nassau and that the missing documentation of the divorce was the reason the Count accepted the ruling that the Grand-dukeship and the Nassau-estate should stay with Grand-Duke Adolph's line?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The family history of the Kings Grand-Dukes lacks junior male lineages, it is not helpful to us to have some precedents:

King Willem I of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of the Netherlands had one younger adult son:

Prince Frederik of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
x Princess Louise of Prussia
=
No adult son

King Willem II of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of the Netherlands had two younger adult sons:

Prince Alexander of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
= remained unmarried

Prince Hendrik of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
x 1 - Princess Amalia of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
= no children
x 2 - Princess Maria of Prussia
= no children

King Willem III of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of the Netherlands had two adult sons:

Prince Willem of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
= remained unmarried

Prince Alexander of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
= remained unmarried

 

[Somebody]

The family history of the Kings Grand-Dukes lacks junior male lineages, it is not helpful to us to have some precedents:

King Willem I of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of the Netherlands had one younger adult son:

Prince Frederik of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
x Princess Louise of Prussia
=
No adult son

King Willem II of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of the Netherlands had two younger adult sons:

Prince Alexander of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
= remained unmarried

Prince Hendrik of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
x 1 - Princess Amalia of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
= no children
x 2 - Princess Maria of Prussia
= no children

King Willem III of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of the Netherlands had two adult sons:

Prince Willem of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
= remained unmarried

Prince Alexander of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau
= remained unmarried

I agree that we don't have an example of 'great-grandchildren' in male-line; which indeed would have helped us to get a better idea how they would have handled such a situation. However, because of Frederik we do know which titles grandchildren in male-line of a younger son had: his four children were prince(ss) of the Netherlands and prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau (and his eldest subsequently became queen of Sweden).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Regarding titles, given that titles for members of the royal house/family were not specifically regulated, my assumption would be that for male-line descendants the 'regular' rules of nobility would apply; i.e., that titles would be passed on in male-line (for children born within legitimate marriages).

Then you believe there would not have been any specific regulation by royal decree superseding regular nobility rules for the children of Queen Juliana's younger sons, as happened with the children of Prince Constantijn a generation later?

Was the title of 'prince(ss) of the Netherlands' specifically tied to membership of the royal house at that time? I know it is nowadays (it is the reason that prince Friso lost this title upon marriage).

At least at that time being a member of the royal house was tied to being in line of succession to the throne. [...]

Tied by tradition or by law? To my knowledge, the 2002 Membership of the Royal House Act was the first and only legislation to regulate royal titles generally rather than for a specific marriage, and only the second law (following the 1985 Membership of the Royal House Act) to generally regulate membership of the Royal House.

The reason that a specific decree was required for Juliana and Bernhard's children imo was that they needed to make sure that their children would also (and first) receive their mother's titles. I assume the same was done for Wilhelmina's own children who were not just 'duke/duchess of Mecklenburg'; but first prince(ss) of the Netherlands; and prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau.

Interestingly, the decrees for future descendants (not only children!) of Queen Wilhelmina and for future children of Princess Juliana were strictly speaking about bestowing a family name, with the titles mentioned (but not conferred by the decree) to provide clarity on the order of precedence of titles and family names. (Duc_et_Pair kindly posted the decree for Princess Juliana's children a few posts above, and the decree for Queen Wilhelmina's descendants is posted in her husband's thread.)

I agree that we don't have an example of 'great-grandchildren' in male-line; which indeed would have helped us to get a better idea how they would have handled such a situation. However, because of Frederik we do know which titles grandchildren in male-line of a younger son had: his four children were prince(ss) of the Netherlands and prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau (and his eldest subsequently became queen of Sweden).

One difference (and I know it was not the point you and Duc_et_Pair were addressing) is that the children of Prince Frederik were expected to keep their rights of succession for life. Assuming the 1963 changes would have still happened, the children of Queen Juliana's hypothetical younger sons would have been expected to lose their succession rights on the accession of King Willem-Alexander (in this scenario, the oldest son of Queen Juliana's oldest son). Duc_et_Pair seems to believe this would matter; do you see it differently?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes. That is my theory. The cadet male lines would continue to be Prince of Orange-Nassau, Duke of Mecklenburg resp. Prince of Orange-Nassau, Prince of Lippe-Biesterfeld, resp. Prince of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg but the title Prince of the Netherlands would have been limited. I am sure.

Later even the title Prince of Orange-Nassau has been limited for cadet lines, like also has been done in Denmark:
graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg
greve (komtesse) af Montpezat

And now Delphine seems to be a de Saxe-Cobourg, I can see Belgium going the same way: prins / prinses van Saksen-Coburg for children of junior sons of a monarch or heir.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes. That is my theory. The cadet male lines would continue to be Prince of Orange-Nassau, Duke of Mecklenburg resp. Prince of Orange-Nassau, Prince of Lippe-Biesterfeld, resp. Prince of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg but the title Prince of the Netherlands would have been limited. I am sure.

Do you believe then that they would have been "only" Princes(ses) of Orange-Nassau and Lippe-Biesterfeld from birth, or would they have been Prince(ss) of the Netherlands until they lost their places in the succession?

Later even the title Prince of Orange-Nassau has been limited for cadet lines, like also has been done in Denmark:
graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg
greve (komtesse) af Montpezat

And now Delphine seems to be a de Saxe-Cobourg, I can see Belgium going the same way: prins / prinses van Saksen-Coburg for children of junior sons of a monarch or heir.

We must wait to see whether Denmark will limit prince(ss)ly titles in cadet lines. From 1853 until the present, every person in the line of succession has been a Prince(ss) of Denmark.

King Philippe intended male-line grandchildren of junior sons to be Prince(ss) of Saxe-Coburg. For that reason he passed the royal decree of 2015 limiting the "of Belgium" title and restoring the so-called "other titles to which their ancestry gives them the right", which he intended to designate the Saxe-Coburg titles in the case of male-line grandchildren. (I must finish writing my explanation of the decree at some point.)

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?

In the Nobility of the three Benelux countries the word Douairière exists to designate widows of titled gentlemen but it is seldom or never used anymore. Like the word Freule exists to designate unmarried daughters of titled gentlemen but is seldom or never used anymore.

If the style of Dowager had still been in use I don't think it would be used by Mabel. Her late husband never was "the" Prince of Orange-Nassau, but only a younger son styled Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau. As a result, Mabel was never styled The Princess of Orange-Nassau and would not need to adopt the Dowager style to communicate that she was no longer the wife of the current head of the family.

The wife of the Prince of Orange is no longer known as the Princess of Orange. Under the Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis of 2002, the title of Princess of Orange is reserved to the heiress presumptive to the Dutch throne.

The Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis of 2002 actually did not limit the social practice of wives taking their husbands' titles by courtesy. Otherwise, Laurentien could not have taken the courtesy title Princess of the Netherlands, because Article 8 of the law reserves the creation of the title Prince(ss) of the Netherlands to spouses and children of the monarch and the heir as well as persons given membership of the Royal House by a special decree under Article 4 (which does not apply to Laurentien).

Nonetheless, the government decided that Máxima should not be addressed as Princess of Orange in order to reserve its usage for future crown princesses.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Actually the formal title of Máxima is HRH Princess Máxima of the Netherlands. No difference between male and female consorts and the same title and style as her male predecessors Duke Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Prince Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld and Jonkheer Claus von Amsberg.

But in 2013 the Government stated that, as by tradition and social custom female spouses of titled gentlemen can be addressed by their husband's title and style, this does not exclude the spouse of the King.

So the opportunity to style Máxima with her formal title is now blurred by not referring with her very own formal title but by that of her spouse. Meaning that de jure there is gender equality in the treatment of spouses but it does not show in daily use.

Also, the style chosen in 2013 was inconsistent with the decision in 2002 to style the wife of the Prince of Orange as Princess Máxima of the Netherlands, in lieu of addressing her by custom as Princess of Orange.

I wonder whether the precedent set in 2013 means the intention is that future wives of Princes of Orange will once more be styled as Princesses of Orange?

In addition, why was it that contrary to other male and female consorts, Máxima's surname of Zorreguieta was legally removed when she married? When the question was put to the Government by the Groenlinks and D66 parties in 2001, the Government refused to clarify, except to state that it was decided in consultation with Máxima.

That is true. But during the readings of the Bill on the Royal House 2002 the Dutch Government preferred the title of King (Queen) to be used by the bearer of the Crown exclusively. They also preferred the title Prince (Princess) of Orange by the Heir(ess) exclusively.

The answer of the Government in 2002 was that the title of Máxima after her husband's accession as King would be the future government's decision to take.

Daarom ligt het in de rede dat het besluit hierover bij de troonswisseling wordt genomen. De regering zal alle elementen die op dat moment bekend en relevant zijn, dan in haar overwegingen kunnen betrekken.

(Therefore it is reasonable that this decision be taken upon the regnal transition. The government will then be able to take into consideration all elements that are known and relevant at that time.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A Bernhard van Vollenhoven or an Eloïse von Amsberg are optically as distant as Jaime de Bourbon de Parme or Juliana Guillermo. But they all are cousins to the King. With Bernhard van Oranje and Eloïse van Oranje they seem more close to the King and that purely is optical. So anything they do sticks to the Royal House because they are an "Orange".

But one sees Jaime de Bourbon de Parme and his siblings referred to often as Prince Jaime, Princess Margarita, et al in the media and even by the Royal Household, and that seems more "royal" still.

As they are the children fo a Prince of The Netherlands I have no problem with them having the ON surname. I am not sure what other one they should have.

The surnames, and titles and predicates if applicable, of children of members of the Royal House are set by Royal Decree in lieu of application of the Civil Code rules. Therefore it is possible for the children to be given only part of or a different surname (or title or predicate) than their father or mother. (The latter happened for instance with the children of Prince Maurits, who bear the surname van Lippe-Biesterfeld van Vollenhoven although their father does not carry the name or title of Lippe-Biesterfeld.) So Eloise van Amsberg would have been an option for the daughter of Constantijn van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg had that been the government's wish.

Interestingly enough, the government proposed to record a rule confining the name "van Oranje-Nassau" to the direct line of succession in the Royal House Membership Act of 2002, although it apparently never came to pass.

Voor kinderen die naar verwachting niet of slechts voor een beperkte duur tot het koninklijk huis zullen behoren, wordt een andere geslachtsnaam dan «van Oranje-Nassau» bepaald teneinde te verzekeren dat deze naam zoveel mogelijk verbonden blijft aan het lidmaatschap van het koninklijk huis en niet overgaat op personen die geen lid zijn van het koninklijk huis.

(For children not expected to belong to the royal house or expected to belong to it only for a limited duration, a family name other than "of Orange-Nassau" is fixed so as to guarantee that, as far as possible, this name remains attached to membership of the Royal House and is not transmitted to persons who are not members of the royal house.

However, the government applied the spirit of the rule to the youngest generation of the royal family: The children of Prince Constantijn and Prince Friso are surnamed "(Countess) of Orange-Nassau (Jonkvrouw) of Amsberg", and the "pure" surname "(Princess) of Orange-Nassau" is confined to the daughters of the King, who do not bear the additional name van Amsberg.

I wonder, however, what the government would have meant to happen in the event that Princess Catharina-Amalia had gotten a younger brother. As he would be "only" an Orange-Nassau, which surname would have been added to his children's surnames to differentiate them from the direct line of Orange-Nassau?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes indeed, that the children of Prince Friso and Prince Constantijn got the surname Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg is clashing with the desire to have Orange-Nassau limited to those closest to the throne.

The best solution would have been the surname Van Lippe-Biesterfeld van Amsberg which is a combination of the paternal surname of Beatrix and the paternal surname of Claus.

Then about Prince Jaime. It is true that the children of Irene are known as Princess Carolina or Prince Jaime. But almost always in the article is mentioned "the son of Princess Irene" or "the daugher of Princess Irene". They are so unknown with the public that Princess Irene needs to be mentioned. Compare it with Princess Natahlie zu Sayn-Wittgenstein. Often you read "the daughter of Princess Benedikte" to get the connection to the Danish royal family.

So the trigger is not the title of countess, princess whatever. It is the surname. No other family in the Netherlands has the surname Orange-Nassau. So when someone sports that name, logically a close link to the King is expected.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Their official documents show their full name: Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand Prins van Oranje, prins der Nederlanden, prins van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=163860&d=1119963359

Translated, the document states:

Act of Birth

Child
Titles and names
Her Royal Highness Alexia Juliana Marcela Laurentien Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau

[…]

Titles and names of the father
His Royal Highness Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand Prince of Orange, Prince of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg

Titles and names of the mother
Her Royal Highness Máxima Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Mrs. van Amsberg​

In the Netherlands, women do not automatically hold the titles and names of their husbands by law, even though most are styled with their husbands' titles or names by courtesy, in the name of social custom. Máxima was legally made Princess of the Netherlands and Princess of Orange-Nassau by Royal Decree, but no Royal Decree or Act of Parliament ever made her Mevrouw (Mrs.) van Amsberg by law.

Why then do official documents show her as Mrs. van Amsberg?

The same question goes for the title of Queen, which is supposed to be only a courtesy title but apparently has also been shown on official documents.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't know why the daughters of Maxima and WA don't have the Jonkheer van Amsberg, though.

In 2001, the Government's explanation was that it followed the precedent of past husbands of reigning Queens not passing on their titles/surnames to grandchildren who were in the direct line of succession.

Ten aanzien van de geslachtsnaam van kinderen uit het voorgenomen huwelijk is aangesloten bij de bestendige lijn die daarbij sedert het begin van de eeuw (KB van 8 februari 1901) ten behoud van de naam «van Oranje-Nassau» is gevolgd in de directe lijn van de erfopvolging die samenviel met de vrouwelijke lijn. In de directe lijn van de erfopvolging is de overgang van de titulatuur van de echtgenoten van de achtereenvolgende Koninginnen steeds beperkt gebleven tot hun kind(eren).

(Regarding the family name of children of the planned marriage, it follows the consistent line adhered to since the turn of the century (Royal Decree of 8 February 1901) for the maintenance of the surname "of Orange-Nassau" in the direct line of succession, which coincided with the female line. In the direct line of succession the transmission of the titulature of the husband of the successive Queens is always limited to their child(ren).

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-00009-9.html

 

[Somebody]

And I assume they used the example of Margriet's children to decide on those of Friso and Constantijn - although the situation isn't completely comparable as neither Margriet nor Pieter van Vollenhoven were ever addressed as both 'van Oranje-Nassau' and 'van Vollenhoven', while their sons are both princes of Orange-Nassau and also carry the surname van Vollenhoven.

I wonder what that might mean for Alexia's and Ariane's children: will they be "X van Oranje-Nassau SURNAME FATHER"? Will they be titled? If so, I expect them to become counts and countesses and not prince or princesses - however, if those titles aren't 'personal' like they are for the van Vollenhoven princes, they might be passed on for many generations.

It's easier for Amalia's children: they will be prince(sse)s of the Netherland and prince(sse)s of Orange-Nassau. For me the only question is whether they would also carry their father's surname if he is a commoner (the husbands so far were titled - although in decreasing status).

 

[Stefan]

In 2001, the Government's explanation was that it followed the precedent of past husbands of reigning Queens not passing on their titles/surnames to grandchildren who were in the direct line of succession.



https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-00009-9.html

But the difference was that the previous Queens were daughters of Queens and not a son of a previous Queen like Willem-Alexander.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would advice the King to distance more:

Luana, Zaria, Eloise, Claus-Casimir and Eleonore become Van Lippe-Biesterfeld van Amsberg. No longer Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

Maurits, Bernhard, Pieter-Christiaan and Floris and their children become Van Lippe-Biesterfeld van Vollenhoven. No longer Van Oranje-Nassau, Van Vollenhoven.

It is a mystery why the nephews and nieces of the King are invisible while the more distant related Van Vollenhoven bunch - invisible for 364 days a year- do attend King's Day...

The children of the three younger sons of Margriet are simply 'van Vollenhoven already, so that problem is solved. Queen Beatrix was wise to make her other grandchildren 'only' counts. Van Nassau-Amsberg without the Orange part would have been an option too, as was the tradition in the family: we had the Nassau-Ouwerkerk, Nassau-Breda, Nassau-Lalecq and all the various German branches.

Van Nassau was no option because the Dutch branch of the dynasty became extinct with Queen Wilhelmina. Van Oranje-Nassau is the name of the royal dynasty.

That was already the case before Queen Wilhelmina. And wasn't the intention in this hypothetical situation to avoid using the name of the royal dynasty? As Marengo said, the plain "of Nassau" has been carried by branches of the family which came from illegitimate sons and thus lacked dynastic rights, so it would have been somewhat in keeping with precedent to use it for non-members of the Royal House.