Talk:Princes of Orange

message: I think the article as it now stands is a trifle Franco-centric (as it glosses over certain details that are important to judge the claim in international law to the title of France). It also does not mention an important legal aspect, that played an important role in the litigation about the inheritance of William III of England.
First of all, the French claim. It is true (as the article states) that the sovereign principality Orange (legally not a fief of the kings of France) was several times annexed to France by Louis XIV, starting in 1672. However, it was returned several times also to its rightful owner (in 1678 by the Treaty of Nijmegen, and in 1698 by the Treaty of Rijswijk). It was annexed a third time in 1701, at the start of the War of Spanish Succession, and this time Louis agreed with one of the claimants to the title and principality, Frederick William I of Prussia in one of the treaties that make up the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 that he could keep the land, but not the title. Frederick William at the same time agreed to hold Louis harmless against other claimants (i.e. he assumed  the cost of compensation to such claimants). This was a legal manoeuvre of doubtful validlity, because surely it is unusual if a thief holds his fence harmless against the rightful owner; the rightful owner does not have to accept compensation, if he wants the stolen object itself. But then, of course, all of this was a legal gloss over a fact of power.
What of the several legal claims to the inheritance? The analysis in the article (agnate and cognate lines and such), though interesting, is largely irrelevant. To my knowledge it only played a subsidiary role in the legal arguments. The main point in those arguments was that there were several "fidei-commis familiale" (or what is known in common law as fee tail or entailments), which played a role. These entails, and the last wills and testaments that they limited, were what determined who the "real" heir of William III was. The first relevant entail was one made by René of Châlon in the same Will in with he bequeathed his possessions to William the Silent. In this entailment Rene determined that in case of extinction of the male line of William, first the female line would succeed, and only then the successors of John VI, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg, William's younger brother. In other words, what the article says about agnate succession is incorrect. 
But there is another entailment, that is even more important. When Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange died, his son had no legitimate male offspring. Frederick Henry therefore made a similar entail, giving the succession to the offspring in the male line of his eldest daugher Luise Henriette of Nassau in case his own male line became extinct. This entail limited arguably the right of his grandson William III to will the title and principality of Orange to the offspring of another, younger daughter of Frederick Henry, Albertine Agnes of Nassau. This set the stage for the famous, thirty year battle between John William Friso, Prince of Orange and his cousin Friedrich Wilhelm, which revolved around the question what weight one would give to Frederick Henry's entail.
It is not my intention to pronounce on the question of "who was right," as this again is not relevant. Eventually, the matter was settled out of court between the two claimants still alive in 1732 by the Treaty of Partition between the two Houses. In that Treaty both claimants were allowed to use the title. And this was completely correct, as France never obtained any right to the title, as distinguished from the land. (The claimants also divided possessions outside France). Now, I have this information from the following source, which unfortunately is in Dutch:  "Verschillende aanspraken op het Prinsdom Oranje", in: De Nederlandse Heraut: Tijdschrift op het gebied van Geslacht-, Wapen-, en Zegelkunde, vol. 2 (1885), pp. 151-162. This probably completely disqualifies this source in Anglophone eyes. So before I do any editing, I will await reactions to my invitation to supply citations for the assertions in the article:-)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I now see that my objections above were mainly directed at the first part of the article, which apparentl had a different author than the second part, about the House of Orange-Nassau, which in large part overlaps with the second part. One does not expect an article to repeat the same content, in a slightly different way:-) Maybe this could be merged by someone with time on his hands, and the information about the fee tails included?--Ereunetes (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inheritance fight 

message: After the death of William III in 1702 the King in Prussia advanced claims to Orange as senior cognatic heir. He added "Sovereign Prince of Orange" to his list of titles and this continued to be borne by his descendants until 1918. All well and good. However, Paul Theroff's Online Gotha seems to suggest that "Prince of Orange" was used as a title for the eldest son of the heir-apparent, as well (as the eldest son of the French Dauphin was styled "Duc de Bourgogne"). Is there any other evidence for this usage? It seems to have ceased by the nineteenth century.
List of eldest sons of Prussian heirs-apparent:
* 1707-1708: Friedrich Ludwig, grandson of Friedrich I
* 1710-1711: Friedrich Wilhelm, grandson of Friedrich I
* 1712-1713: Friedrich, grandson of Friedrich I
* 1795-1797: Friedrich Wilhelm, grandson of Friedrich Wilhelm II
* 1861-1888: Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert, grandson of Wilhelm I
* 1888-1888: Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor August Ernst, grandson of Friedrich III
* 1906-1918: Wilhelm Friedrich Franz Joseph Christian Olaf, grandson of Wilhelm II
Opera hat (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by the House of Hohenzollern