Talk:Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands

Gentlemen, if he were to select the name Alexander whenever he becomes King, would not his reignal name be merely Alexander, rather Alexander I? His mother, for instance, does not reign under the name Beatrix I (I am, of course, not attempting to be impolite to other editors.)--Anglius 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed. But I don't think he has announced yet which name he will use after succeeding his mother. Unless anyone can provide a reference, I will remove it from the article. Baszoetekouw 10:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

He did. I've added a reference. Eugene van der Pijll 12:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he will probably reign as Willem(William) IV. He also noted that in an interview with Paul Witteman. Daimanta (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand visit

Not sure if this belongs in the article (or is even relavent) but saw this article in today's newspaper:

"Dutch royals snap at media"

The Prince and Princess are in New Zealand as part of a state visit and was asked by a reporter if they were enjoying their visit to New Zealand, to which the Prince responded "It's none of your business, it's private". It should be noted though that the visit to Queenstown is not part of the NZ taxpayer founded trip. Someone more involved with the article can make a judgement as to whether this belongs in the article. I don't know enough about the Dutch royal family to know if this is out of character or not. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dark or light?

On the picture in this article (and other pictures) the titleperson is darkhaired (so called "darkblond"). On most other press-pictures however, the titleperson is (sometimes very) lightblond (as good as whiteblond). In case insiders can confirm, that the titleperson often or mostly appears with bleached hair, this might be a relevant fact, to be mentioned in the text. James Blond 04:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By now this isn't a question any more. The answer is confirmative. Still a question however is wether apart from his spouse, who is as good as always bleached, also the two oldest descendants are bleached already, which might lead to the impression, that this is a hereditive characteristic. James Blond 04:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Prince of Orange?

How can somebody be Prince of Orange, when Orange isn't a princedom any more, for a long time, but simply a town in France? That guy is Prince of the Netherlands and nothing but that. James Blond 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a title of nobility to survive the demise of the political entity to which it was tied. The title 'Prince of Orange' is an excellent example. It could be argued that most noble titles function this way. You won`t find a Duke of Norfolk that actually rules Norfolk, or anything else. --Isolani 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After all, the House of Wittelsbach (past monarchs of Bavaria) still claims the title of King of Jerusalem, if I remember right. Nyttend 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be "not uncommon", but that doesn't take away, that it is unrealistic and even nonsensical. If Cassius Clay would still call himself World boxingchampion, than people would ask themselves, what went wrong with him. He's "former W-champion", even if his mother would still call him W-champion. It wouldn't be accepted, when somebody, would call him "W-champion" in the Wikipedia-article, because it simply is not true. James Blond 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's true. He is recognized by the Dutch government (and therefore, I guess, by any other government) as Prince of Orange. You don't see to grasp the concept of titles of nobility. They do not usually imply a claim on a territory. Känsterle 09:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more, Prince Willem-Alexander does not simply claim the title, he's legally allowed to use the title "Prince of Orange", this according to the Treaty of Utrecht and the Treaty of Partage I believe. Demophon 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Orange has nothing to do with the actual city. The Dutch would then also say Orange, which they don't. It's Oranje (as in the colour).

Dynasty name v/s Surname

Can someone clarify for me what this is for Prince William-Alexander? for the Prince of Wales, the dynasty name is Windsor, whereas his personal surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.Drachenfyre 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dynastic name would be Oranje-Nassau, with the most common family name being 'van Oranje' however any member of the royal family can use the surname of any other noble title they hold. The prince has used the surname 'van Buren' when running the NY Marathon and was entitled to using it as being Count van Buren as well. --Isolani 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: The Prince of Wales does not have a legal surname as a titled royal. William Alexander probably does not have one as well. Sometimes though, informal surnames are used where one is required. Charles 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

His surname is van Oranje-Nassau. I vonH (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well....yes and no. It's as Charles says: Royals do not have legal surnames, but they use sometimes informal ones. Naming of royals and nobility is different regulated than for normal civilians; this is because it's historically different developed. The naming of civilians is of course given name + surname. Royals and nobility are named given name + title (nobility also given name + nobility rank (i.e. count, etc.) + surname). So concerning Prince Willem-Alexander it can be: Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange; Willem-Alexander, Prince of the Netherlands; Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange-Nassau; or Willem-Alexander, Jonkheer van Amsberg. They are all correct; in practice the first one is used, since this is the highest and most specific title. However, Oranje-Nassau is the formal dynasty name of this family, so sometimes the prince is named with Willem-Alexander van Oranje-Nassau (or in English Willem-Alexander of Orange-Nassau). In a lot of articles and encyclopedia they sometimes name royals with this "given name + dynastyname". This way of naming is also used with a lot of royals, nobility and monarchs at Wikipedia, especially with persons of centuries ago. Although common practice, this is nonetheless not really correct in the strict rules of naming. This leads by the way to annoying errors: Princess Maxima of the Netherlands is sometimes named Maxima of the Netherlands and Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands sometimes Beatrix of the Netherlands. Here "the Netherlands" is used like a sort of surname!

Furthermore, if Prince Willem-Alexander would have a surname, it's the one of his father, i.e. von Amsberg. However, via a royal decree the name of his father was changed into: Prins Claus George Willem Otto Frederik Geert der Nederlanden, Jonkheer van Amsberg. So I think that since he became a royal prince the normal naming for civilians doen't matter anymore.

If you want to know more about the titles and names of the children (including Prince Willem Alexander) of Queen Beatrix, see Royal Decree 18 February 1966 (if you can read Dutch) Demophon (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

His mother outranked his father thus he has her surname- van Oranje-Nassau. I vonH (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rank has little to do with it, it is more the desire of the sovereign. A higher ranking mother does not automatically give her surname to her children unless provisions have been made to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does, but you obviously know little of such thingsI vonH (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pay no attention to this meatpuppet/sockpuppet. Charles 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daimanta (talk • contribs)