Quote Originally Posted by Fragony View Post
That is the difference I was hinting at Kraz, the law of the contitutional monrachy are not he same laws of the nation state. i don't know who was the last descendant he supposedly broke his neck when his horse aurevoired him 300 years ago, don't care either
Frag where are you reading that? Your Constitution says that the monarch should be a lawful successor to Willem I, nothing about some Orange dude 300 years past.

Het koningschap wordt erfelijk vervuld door de wettige opvolgers van Koning Willem I, Prins van Oranje-Nassau.