Talk:William of Nassau (1601–1627)

Title should be William of Nassau-Lalecq
As the article points out, this William of Nassau was a bastard son of Maurice of Nassau, though recognized by his father (like a lot of his bastard half-brothers; Maurice was an easy-going fellow :-) and given a courtesy title. It is therefore better to use that courtesy title, especially as this is the name he is usually referred to by in historical works. It is a bit awkward to differentiate him from the many other Williams of Nassau by just his birth and death year. Unless one already knows those, this article is difficult to find. I propose therefore to change the title of the article accordingly, but I don't want to be overhasty. Maybe the person who wrote the article thought he had good reasons to choose this title?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of the article I noticed that it had been renamed from its original title"Willem van Nassau, heer van de Lek" in 2008. This seems also eminently reasonable, so maybe the title should simply revert to the original.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)