I'm not fluent in French, so I can't speak directly to implication, but a quick search on the French Wikipedia:Florinaldo wrote:The original French title is also interesting. Instead of the more familiar and probably expected "prise du pouvoir", Rossellini uses "prise de pouvoir"
The former would indicate someone seizing power, by force perhaps, in an instance where he was not legitimately entitled to it. The latter suggests that power is assumed as intended by the natural order of things or according to the accepted rules. In this case, by the lawful heir to the throne.
prise du pouvoir:
- La prise du pouvoir par Hitler (here)
- Dans les faits, il prépare la prise du pouvoir (from October Revolution)
- Prise du pouvoir (section of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali)
- La prise du pouvoir par les communistes (section on Histoire du Laos)
- Prise du pouvoir (section of Vercingétorix)
- Histoire d'un crime est un roman de Victor Hugo sur la prise de pouvoir de Napoléon III en France.
- La Prise de pouvoir (section of The Dictatorship of Saddam Hussein)
- Prise de pouvoir (section of Jean II of France)
- Les assassinats de Rieseberg désignent le crime commis par les nationaux-socialistes peu après leur prise de pouvoir en 1933 (here)
- Cette période - appelée également période Tokugawa - débute vers 1600, avec la prise de pouvoir de Ieyasu Tokugawa (Époque d'Edo)
Prise du pouvoir seems to be more common, but neither seems to be uncommon and I'm not seeing a clear difference of usage. Are they perhaps pretty much interchangeable?
That said, other than the fact that it is something of a word-for-word translation, it seems like it would be hard to argue that taking of power has anywhere near the familiarity and usage of prise de pouvoir or prise du pouvoir. Siezing of power seems closer in spirit (and frequency of usage), although it adds an implication that the power was not yours to begin with in any way (whereas taking of power could cover a proper transition of power, even if the implication is that something pretty dramatic is going on. E.g., A coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist parties took power in Britain following the general election of 1895.). Rise to power, on the other hand, implies to me that it is part of a larger historical picture, with possibly some connotation of historical inevitability, but certainly with the idea that it was a process over time rather than a momentary event, and with the idea that it was not immediately extinguished, even if it may have been short-lived in a relative sense.
So the taking of power has the benefit of not adding any meaning to the original, despite its relative disuse and the peculiarity of its construction.
