This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frisia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.FrisiaWikipedia:WikiProject FrisiaTemplate:WikiProject FrisiaFrisia articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
The title of this article has recently been changed to "Henry Casimir II, Count of Nassau-Dietz" (by way of Diez, which was correct also), from the simpler "Henry Casimir II of Nassau Dietz". I don't think this is necessarily an improvement. As a matter of historical accuracy, Henry's father Willem Frederik was "promoted" from Count to Reichsfuerst in 1654, so Henry was a Prince of the Empire, also, and might have resented being called a lowly Count. More important, however, is the question: what are we to do with the other members of the family? I just completed an article about Willem Frederik and noted that it already had a number of wikilinks. I did not put in the "count" in the title of that article, and I don't think it would be a good idea to change that title to one including the noble title (It would a lot of needless work). I also noted that most links to this article went to the "countless"-title, and now refer to it by a double redirect (because of the Diez-Dietz moves). My suggestion would be to move it back to the original title, just as a matter of consistency.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very enthousiastic about changing the title to "Prince" (though that may be better than "Count") because leaving out the title would avoid a lot of redirect trouble. Be that as it may. In any case the mention of Stadtholder under "regnal titles" in the box is incorrect. Unlike the count/prince title (both legitimate regnal titles from the Holy Roman Empire) the stadtholder was a holdover from the times these provinces were part of the Habsburg empire, retained after the Dutch Revolt. The good citizens of the province of Friesland would have been abhorred to learn that their stadtholder "reigned" over them. The Frisian stadtholder was not even allowed to own property in the province, to avoid any improper feudal aspirations. I mean, I admire the makers of all these pretty boxes, but those ought to contain correct information.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Prince", he was simply a Fürst of Nassau-Dietz in the Holy Roman Empire.
Regarding your comment that Stadtholder was no "regnal title", I think you are right till some extent. The title should be put in the box "political offices", as is done correctly at the pages of some stadtholders, like for example William III of England. I'm going to change that at the pages of some stadholders. Till some extent! Since William IV, Prince of Orange the Stadtholdership was hereditary, which makes it a regnal title from then in my opinion. Demophon (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
