Talk:House of Orange-Nassau

The information given in the fourth paragraph about William III "causing" the glorious revolution is completely incorrect. He in no way caused Parliament and other actors to force the abdication of James II, which has much more to do with the legacy of the Civil War than the Dutch royal house.

Also, the article seems to indicate that it was the personal actions of William that led to a more constitutional monarchy, whereas in reality he objected to much of the more progressive articles of the Bill of Rights before he accepted the Crown.

Thirdly, his main claim to 'legitimacy' on the English throne was though his wife, Mary Stuart, whom he technically ruled with as an equal. Quee1797 19:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anne

Anne was not House of Orange, she was a Stuart. -- Zoe

You're absolutely right; I must have screwed up List of British monarchs. Jeez, that things going to look even more complicated! &mdash; Toby 00:19 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

The article is wrong in more aspects. William of Orange (or William the Silent) was a son of the Count of Nassau (in current Germany). At young age, he inherited the title Prince of Orange when his uncle died. So while the "House of Orange" is the common title for the Dutch royal family, it is not the House of Orange that acquired Nassau. I'll change this in the text. Jeronimo

Hmmm, this gets more complicated, since there's also an article Orange-Nassau about this and a big article at Dutch monarchy. I think it would be best to just redirect this and the Orange-Nassau page to there, but I'm not sure. Any other suggestions? Jeronimo

I say that it should all go to House of Orange-Nassau and be combined. Zoe and Jeronimo? &mdash; Toby 00:45 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)


 * Actually, no. The Dutch monarchy hasn't always been the House of Orange-Nassau (the Kingdom of Holland had Napoleon's brother as the king), while the House of Orange-Nassau hasn't always been the Dutch monarchs. However, the two articles could probably borrow a lot from each other. I volunteer to help rewriting them. Jeronimo

OK, I'm with you then. There could still be an article on the "House of Orange" sometime, about the French principality of course... But that can be dealt with when somebody actually wants to write it. I'll make the redirect and move right away. Jeronimo


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Dutch monarchy would go there! I thought that that went without saying, but I see that I wasn't clear. I meant the others, the ones with "Orange" in the title, no more. &mdash; Toby 01:15 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

Wrong
As A Member Of the Oosterbaan Family (The True Heirs to the throne of Orange born to King William III by Elizabeth Villers but ousted by the villanous John Willaim Friso and his family of thiefs from which we have been in hiding from to this very day) I am appaled that History dose not recognize our legitamate claim nor Wikipedia!Winn3317 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, this is just plain silly. Even if your family does descent from Wiliam III, it would be through illigetimate birth. Their is no law, custom or right in any dynasty or constitution that grands rights to the inheritance of titles or fiefs to children born out of wedlock. Besides, William III bequested the princedom of Orange specifically to his cousin Johan William Friso. The position of stadtholder was not heriditary and the throne of England was not Williams but Mary Stuarts.
 * Wow, at a loss for words on the top posting. JMvanDijk (talk)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section maybe try to show some links between Orange's use in Holland/The Netherlands, and this house? I've no idea if the two are related.

Sir Francis Drake?
I am intrigued by the following paragraph:

"William's oldest son, Philip William (1552-1622), had been captured and imprisoned by King Philip II of Spain (in 1582), and tried to claim his right to the throne in 1596, after his release from prison and after the presumed death of Sir Francis Drake, which was the fictitious name of William "the silent" of Orange. However, John Maurits Henry, was more powerful and had the approval of his father, who was still alive and hiding from Spanish assassins in Virginia."

I suspect that whoever included this (bizarre) passage has been reading too much mystery novels. In fact, this particular conspiracy theory has never before reached me in any form whatsoever. Can someone trace its origin, remove it, and replace it with some correct information regarding the position of Philip William's inheritance after his father's death?

Colour orange
Is it just in English that the link between the house and the colour is made ? -- Beardo 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you seen this picture of Queen's Day? -- Eugène van der Pijll 10:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But what is the word for the colour orange in Dutch ? Is it linked to the name of the royal house ? -- Beardo 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The word is oranje and the name of the House is in Dutch Oranje. The word for the fruit is however sinaasappel.--MWAK 08:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have found something totally different to the orange discussion that may help with your questions - see my section on carrots and the house of orange and see the link http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html


 * The carrot section in my opinion does not belong in the article. It's more about the history of the carrot than it is about the history of the house of orange-nassau. If more people agree it should be removed. Gemertp 14:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Founding year
The founding year of the House of Orange is 1544, not 1815. The founder is William of Orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.221.201.26 (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

House of Orange / House of Orange-Nassau
Shouldn't these two be split up? [Prince_of_Orange] talks about both, and has links to both in a single sentence, but they redirect to the same page. Shouldn't we at least describe the difference between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalty Parsing Project (talk • contribs) 08:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the "what links here"-page and noticed that there apparently has been a "House of Orange"-page, but that now redirects to this article. Though I admire parsimony in general, I deplore it in this case, because there really is a difference. The House-of-Orange-Nassau name change only came about after the extinction of the House of Orange in 1702 when the House of Orange was merged with that of Nassau-Dietz (at which exact date I am not sure; I think with the Treaty of Partition with the Hohenzollern claimants to the title in 1732 at the latest). I don't think it is necessary to split up the article, but the evolution of the House of Orange into the House of Orange-Nassau should be made clear. Maybe at the same time the many other errors in the article could be cleared up. How this could be rated B-class is an enigma to me, but I have stopped taking notice of the classifications bestowed by the Netherlands project, as they seem to be completely arbitrary.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the house of Orange (which is actually the second house of Orange, the first went extinct with the death of Rene de Chalon) is the dynasty founded by William the Silent, Prince of Orange, stadtholder of Holland which went extinct with the death of William III in 1702. This house never held the title of count of Nassau, as that title was inherited by John of Nassau, younger brother of Wiliam the Silent, in 1559. When William III died in 1702, Johan William Friso, count of Nassau-Dietz and stadtholder of Friesland inherited the princedom of Orange and founded the third Orange dynasty, the house of Orange-Nassau.

re assessed wikiproject Netherlands
I have reassessed the article and following the quote "An article that ... most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." I cannot rank it above start. Arnoutf (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Name of the Dutch Royal House
House of Orange-Nassau van Mecklenburg, van Lippe, van Amsberg

Someone seems to have peppered language thru this article about these "houses", and based on this removed the last 3 Dutch Monarchs from the table of Queens/Kings. I've left this title in as it seems to be very important to someone to have it here: they keep adding it in when I erase it. However, I can find no references to the House of Orange being referred to by this name, or the idea of a "creation" of different houses to hold the title by a monarch such as in the British Peerages. If you ask a Dutchman what is the name of the Royal House, you will get "van Oranje-Nassau" and likely a rousing chorus of "Oranje Boven". If you ask about Mecklenburg, Lippe-Beisterfeld or Amsberg, you will get a puzzled look and some unprintable references to Germans (although Prince Claus is still very well respected). The Dutch nation is long reconciled that the heritage of William the Silent passes through the female equally well to the male, and see it all as one. I base this on my personal experience: I have a statistically significant sample space, and a 100% agreement on the above. Also the website of the Dutch Royal House (cited) does not make this distinction either. One would think that is the most authoritative source of what they call themselves. If you read the website (it is more comprehensive in Dutch) Queen Wilhelmina decreed in 1907 that all her descendants would be princes and princesses of Orange-Nassau. Applying such strict distinctions to a Royal House and country that does not follow them seems pedantic. To the extent that any Dutch royals use a surname, such as "Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg" the only one would did was Prince Friso before his accident in his private capacity as a banker. However, by marrying his wife without permission of he Dutch Parliament, he is no longer eligible for the throne. JMvanDijk (talk)JMvanDijk.


 * These edits should be reversed. Although a point can be made from the standpoint of historical technicality that the latest monarchs belong to different houses, they were conferred the Orange-Nassau title, invoking, the Nassau House Treaty of 1777. A ruling by the different branches of the House of Nassau. Which is part of the legal background for this. They are generally seen as members of the House of Orange-Nassau, as well as being members of their patronymic families. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted. Edits about issues like this should be discussed here first i.m.o. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an article about the Dutch Royal House which has its own article, and Dutch-centrism is not the way Wikipedia articles are written. This is an article about the historical house (i.e. family) called Orange-Nassau, from the state called Orange-Nassau, a former princely family from Germany who ruled in many German states, in Luxembourg, in the Netherlands, and other countries of Europe. No branch of the House of Nassau is alive today, because the house of Nassau follows the agnatic-primogeniture system, and all other states where this house ruled (e.g. Luxembourg, Orange-Nassau, Limburg etc.) followed this system as well. Usage of surnames and titles in one modern state is a different matter and can be dealt with in the appropriate articles on Dutch Royal House and Monarchy of the Netherlands, and has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Even if they were to use the name consistently (actually they don't, they often add the Amsberg name), they would not be members of the historical house that the article discusses and they would not be heads of the former ruling house of the state of Orange-Nassau, Limburg, Luxembourg or other countries. You can adopt or use an historical name whether in titles or surnames, but you don't become part of the same, extinct, historical house. In any event, Willem-Alexander would not be the head of the house of Orange-Nassau that has been extinct for decades even under an absolute primogeniture system, as there were certainly older sisters earlier in history, and he is not the head of any branch of the house of Nassau or the former ruling house (Orange-Nassau) of Orange-Nassau. Another matter is that the historical Principality of Orange needs to be identified as dissolved; France is now a republic and the area is not ruled by this house. Vanasan (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An article with this title cannot be wholly seperated from the Dutch situation in which the House of Orange-Nassau lives on. The agnatic primogeniture for that House is historical in the sense that it isn't used anymore and the House as such now uses other new rules. The House is therefore still extant because rules, historical as they may be, change with time. The article was set up in a way that acknowledged that. Your edits change the way the subject of the article has always been interpreted. You could start an article about the ruling family of Nassau-Dietz, in which they would be more appropriate, but the subject of this article is broader than you have made it now.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hebel. Applying these agnatic rules to the Dutch Royal House is out of all proportion with the practice in Holland and does not reflect historical reality or current use.  In short, it would not reflect the real world as it is and would be of very limited use.  To do that this article has to be Dutch Centric, as this is about the house that occupies the Dutch Throne.   If Vanasan wants to write an article on the agnatic house of Nassau-Dietz, he is welcome to do so.  24.90.220.243 (talk)

(talk)JMvanDijk (talk) Sorry, comment above was me, seems I wasn't signed in.... JMvanDijk (talk)


 * As you may have notice I have trouble with the recent edit, and more in general edits like this, because the scope of this or any article should i.m.o. be determined by the pervasiveness of the subject and not by considerations that would limit the scope of the article from a theoretic, legalistic or even ideological point of view. Considerations like that (and I do understand what Vanasan is getting at) should of course be mentioned and explained in the article, but should not limit it's scope. Now, I think, this article, which admittedly had some issues, has even more issues. Reservations against "Dutch centeredness", whatever that may mean in this context, do not even apply as a valid argument. I can't for the world of me understand how this subject as defined in the article's title, can be separated from the present practice in which the Royal Family of the Dutch is generally understood to be the House of Orange-Nassau. Having said that, the title (not just surnames that are incidentally used) Prince of Orange-Nassau is used by that Royal House. Also, citing historical rules, specially when they are historical in the sense that they don't apply anymore, are no argument to limit the scope of the article's subject. They (and their evolution) should be explained in the article, but not limit it's scope. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, agree with [User:Hebel|Gerard von Hebel]] (talk). JMvanDijk (talk)
 * Agree with JMvanDijk and Gerard von Hebel. Titles are frequently no longer linked to actual domains. Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an article about the Dutch royal house, but a former ruling house of multiple countries, nor is it an article about any title such as Prince of Orange-Nassau, which is something else entirely that could be used by members of the historical house or by someone completely unrelated. The house of Nassau doesn't have "new rules" because that house follows the agnatic primogenture system prevalent in Europe and is extinct. If someone chooses to use the name, they don't become members of the same historical house. If I adopted the name Orange-Nassau, I wouldn't become a member of the identical historical house from Nassau either. If the royal family of the Netherlands were to use this name, they would at the very best be a different house with the same name, the house of Orange-Nassau (Netherlands), they would not be identical with the branch of the House of Nassau discussed in this article that also ruled Luxembourg, Limburg, Orange-Nassau and other states, nor would they be its head (not even by absolute primogeniture). We don't need any Dutch-centrism in this article when there is already another article specifically on the Dutch Royal House and yet another one on the monarchy of the Netherlands, this article ought to discuss the history of the entire historical house, not from the POV of one single country. Also, even the Dutch Wikipedia in its list of Dutch monarchs points out that the monarchs since 1948 belong to the houses of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Lippe and Amsberg, pointing out that they are not members of the historical family discussed in this article from the genealogical point of view. Vanasan (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are making a very pedantic point and one that is not backed up by Dutch law, history or tradition. Under all three of those this family is THE House of Orange-Nassau.  This is an article about that house.  I'm not sure who wrote the Dutch Wikipedia article or where their sources are (we are supposed to use verifiable objective sources right?).  If you look at the website of the Dutch Royal House (http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl and the website of the dutch government, http://www.government.nl, you will find the name of the Royal House/Family is "Oranje-Nassau" (Orange-Nassau) in English.  If you cast your eyes on the genealogy, they are the most direct descendants of William the Silent, save the Hohenzollerns.  No Dutchman worth his salt will accept a German king, esp. after World War II (I'm keeping it polite here).  We reserve the right in Holland to make our own laws as they affect us, so yes, this is the POV that counts here.  If you would like to make an article about agnatic descent that no one but a few scholars will find useful, feel free, but do not do it here.JMvanDijk (talk)[User:JMvanDijk|JMvanDijk]] (talk)


 * I'd also point out that based on strict agnatic rules I'd be hard pressed to think of one sitting royal house that would then deserve its crown, its titles or its last name(s). Windsors -- only on the throne thanks to a revolution in 1688 and an act of Parliament.  Borbons in Spain -- Juan Carlos is on the throne as his (grand?) uncle was passed over.  Orleans pretender to the French Throne -- not the eldest descendant of Hugh Capet.  Current Romanov pretender -- preferred by Romanovs as elder line is a Hohenzollern.  Queen of Denmark -- only Queen as her Uncle was passed over.

Do I need to go on? Let's not veer off into silliness here. JMvanDijk (talk) [User:JMvanDijk|JMvanDijk]] (talk)


 * JMvanDijk is quoting second sources as is appropriate on Wikepedia. He is right in saying that the point is pedantic. Sometimes there is nothing wrong with being pedantic but Vanasan has unilaterally changed the subject matter of this article. There is an article about the Principality of Orange-Nassau already on the English Wikipedia. He should go there. This article should deal with what is in it's subject line. And that is more pervasive than the (sometimes legitimate) conventions that Vanasan is quoting. Again... these conventions should be explained and quoted in the article, but they shouldn't be limiting the scope and subject matter of the article. This is not a technical or historical piece of discourse but an Encyclopedia article! Whatever the definition of a noble House or family may be in an historical sense, changes and additions that have been made in this and other cases and are part of our reality. They are also in historical continuity and building on the things that were once defined differently before changes occured. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Also there is an interesting fallacy in Vanadans argumentation when stating "France is now a republic" where it is implied that aristocratic titles linked to a domain are not relevant in a Republic. That eliminates almost all German, Austrian, Irish, French and other countries' aristocratic family names at a single stroke (including Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Lippe-Biesterfeld). Good luck changing all that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

New Evaluation of this article
Since we have the editor's attention, can we get another evaluation of this article? It hasn't been done in a few years. A new eval would show us what needs improvement and what doesn't. Thanks,  JMvanDijk (talk)


 * I will be looking at it since it has caught my attention. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This article still need re-evaluation as I think it should qualify for a much higher status. Thanks!  JMvanDijk (talk)

United Kingdom of the Netherlands
I removed that section from the list of rulers. The Kingdom was always called the way it is still being called. There may have been loss of territory but the Kingdom remained the same Kingdom as it was before. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Family Foundations of the House of Orange-Nassau
I am confused about the different family foundations established by Queen Juliana. What classes of items belong specifically to the Foundation Crown Properties, the Foundation Regalia, and the Foundation Historical Collections of the House of Orange-Nassau ? The Wikipedia article should clarify that.161.24.19.44 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor mistake in the use of wording.
In the family tree, the use of the phrase ´not eligible for throne´ is a severe political and social mistake, if not downright a defacto real mistake. They are all elligible for the/a throne, they are not all elligible for the/a comode, which is herent to/onto the term crown. (Some will bicker about this, stating that indeed they are eligible for the/a crown, which defacto would be true).

I suppose the real issue and instance would be that they are not all elligible for the plunger within the comode, some not wanting it (due the term plunger), some not having what that would take (the comode is due some other, the backwash, theirs).

Profits can be fast, the downfall, disastrous, all and any whom have, having lost their heads (in more ways than one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.111.106 (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Can some one please translate this, because I have truly no idea what the poster above is trying to say with phrases like "plunger within the comode" which I can only interpret as "unblocking the loo" as far a my English goes (and I guess that is not what was meant). 18:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what is going on above there given the simple phrase, "not eligible for the throne", which in standard English means that the person has been disbarred from becoming King/Queen of the Netherlands under the constitution. In this case, Johan Friso was disbarred and lost his title of "Prince of the Netherlands" as he married without the consent of the Dutch Government and States-General.  That is all the phrase meant. JMvanDijk (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the poster's other edits: he's a troll, wittingly or otherwise. FactStraight (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Family tree
The family tree's font size is too small. It's difficult to read. Shouldn't be bigger? And there is too much text --188.25.27.24 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on House of Orange-Nassau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530175348/http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/globale-paginas/taalrubrieken/english/news to http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/globale-paginas/taalrubrieken/english/news/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111084906/http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=NG-NM-10152&lang=en to http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=NG-NM-10152&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111092052/http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=NG-793-53 to http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=NG-793-53
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325102444/http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/english/ to http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/english/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

pronunciation Netherlandish preposition "van" in "Huis van Oranje-Nassau"
The 'v' in van is definitely not pronounced as a (phonetic) 'f', since in correct Netherlandish pronunciation 'v' and 'f' are distinct: 'v' is pronounced slightly voiced, whereas 'f' is pronounced sharp voiceless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktikutDOA0E Amand Keultjes (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Arms of Hendrik of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.svg

Coat of arms of the Netherlands is Wrong
Coat of arms

It is wrong that the article is a coat of arms, it has to be the roll fo arms article or create the article of coat of arms of House of Orange-Nassau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luismedinap (talk • contribs) 20:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No evidence of dissolution
there is no evidence of dissolution of orange nasssau. UnsungHistory (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)