Prince Louis and Princess Tessy to Divorce: January 18, 2017

[Tatiana Maria]

Tessy can choose a house to her liking, of maximum 1,500,000.00 Pounds, which will be purchased for her, which will be maintenanced, including all utility and service costs. All costs regarding the two princes, their education, their medical bills, all will be met. It is a generous offer most single mums can only dream about. And all this from essentially a penniless husband.

The costs of the education and medical bills were a longstanding voluntary contribution from the husband's parents, who promised to maintain it after the divorce. Presumably, neither of the spouses could have afforded the educational fees on their own assets.

12 years rent-free is generous and reasonable. Of course, it would be more generous and less disruptive if the GDF let Tessy and the boys stay in their current home but apparently that’s not an option. I do wonder if the GDF will actually notify Tessy to leave though. She will certainly vent on social media if they do.

It’s doubtful Louis/GDF will give another offer. After all, the GDF was firm about not yielding to exorbitant demands. A former maid sued GD Maria Teresa a few years ago and instead of simply settling, the GDF let the matter go to court. Don’t know the outcome of that case though. Clearly they’re not afraid of negative impressions of what could be released publicly and will stick to what they believe to be fair.

You make instructive observations. Indeed, perhaps the family only wanted to secure their legal claim to the former matrimonial home, particularly if Prince Louis might return to London, in which event it would be fair for him to be allowed to reside with his children in their family home.

Hypothetically, can Louis apply for decree absolute now? Or does the possibility of Tessy appealing prevent decree absolute from being granted? The waiting times are long past and Louis wants a "clean break." BTW, I don't think he'll file because that would upset Tessy. He probably wants her to file for decree absolute.

Per the below sources, it appears that only under special circumstances (of which none seem relevant to this case) will a petition to stop a decree absolute succeed. I agree he is legally free to apply, but will probably choose to wait for his estranged wife to file.

Expat Legal » How to stop Decree Nisi from being made Absolute
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

 

[Somebody]

I respectfully disagree about the relevance. Divorce courts in Britain determine spousal maintenance payments by applying British law, even if neither spouse is a British subject. The proposal was (if I correctly understood it) that because royal women marry into their husbands' families, they can fairly expect (British) divorce courts to rule that the families (not merely the husbands) must pay for their upkeep. The point I tried to make was that even in non-royal divorces in Britain, most of the women had married into their husbands' families. Therefore, if marrying into a family obligated the family to pay for the wife's upkeep after a divorce, innumerable families whose sons were divorced in British court would have to pay for their sons' former wives. But that is not the case: The ruling says that no cases (in British divorces) could be found where the family was required to pay.

They did offer to pay for a home for her to reside in rent-free for twelve years.

I agree that information on how divorces in general are handled in Britain is relevant. My onoy objection was against the naming convention being irrelevant (as was confirmed by the judge who said that a British court was not in a position to grant (let her keep) her a Luxembourgish title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I agree that information on how divorces in general are handled in Britain is relevant. My onoy objection was against the naming convention being irrelevant (as was confirmed by the judge who said that a British court was not in a position to grant (let her keep) her a Luxembourgish title.

But it was not her title which was under discussion. At issue was whether or not British divorce courts require families to pay for daughters-in-law who "married into the family". In this discussion, all divorces in British courts involving women who "married into" their husbands' families are relevant. The naming convention is relevant insofar as it signifies there are a large number of women in British divorce courts who "married into" their husbands' families.

 

[Somebody]

The same convention has applied to commoners in Britain, and accordingly the majority of British women take the name of their husband's family on marriage.

I specifically responded to this sentence in which the name was discussed.

Happy to agree to disagree about what was 'under discussion' but the above is what I responded to.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I specifically responded to this sentence in which the name was discussed.

I am aware of that. ? But that sentence was posted as a response to a post about divorce settlements (not titles) of women (including British and Danish women) who married into their husbands' families, which is the reason that post was quoted in my own post:

Perhaps Tessy is not entirely off the mark. The royal convention for centuries has been that a woman marries into her husband's family. In retrospect, was not the divorce settlement of the Queen of Denmark's former daughter-in-law somewhat a divorce between the wife, her husband AND the royal family? To some extent Diana and Sarah were also divorcing a royal family as much as they were divorcing a husband.

The same convention has applied to commoners in Britain, and accordingly the majority of British women take the name of their husband's family on marriage.

However, under British laws, parents do not even have an obligation to pay for their own children after the children have attained their majority, so the natural consequence is that they also have no obligation to pay for their children's spouses or former spouses.

Happy to agree to disagree about what was 'under discussion' but the above is what I responded to.

I hope, at least, that I have satisfactorily explained what my own posts were discussing.

 

[Somebody]

I am aware of that. ? But that sentence was posted as a response to a post about divorce settlements (not titles) of women (including British and Danish women) who married into their husbands' families, which is the reason that post was quoted in my own post:

I hope, at least, that I have satisfactorily explained what my own posts were discussing.

You did

 

[King of the Jungle]

The same convention has applied to commoners in Britain, and accordingly the majority of British women take the name of their husband's family on marriage.

However, under British laws, parents do not even have an obligation to pay for their own children after the children have attained their majority, so the natural consequence is that they also have no obligation to pay for their children's spouses or former spouses.

Interesting. Marrying into a royal family could almost be equated to joining a business. When one partner leaves a firm they are usually compensated payment for the value they have built.
I think the sad thing is that the Lux RF seems to not value Tessy's efforts as much as she thought it would. The situation has degraded her feelings of self worth and she is behaving like a rug has been pulled from underneath her. The firm could have voluntarily afforded Tessy a home as a measure of goodwill. To see her making crazy public outbursts is worrying. That such a wealthy family didn't wish to offer more to their former daughter-in-law seems mean.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Interesting. Marrying into a royal family could almost be equated to joining a business. When one partner leaves a firm they are usually compensated payment for the value they have built.
I think the sad thing is that the Lux RF seems to not value Tessy's efforts as much as she thought it would. The situation has degraded her feelings of self worth and she is behaving like a rug has been pulled from underneath her. The firm could have voluntarily afforded Tessy a home as a measure of goodwill. To see her making crazy public outbursts is worrying. That such a wealthy family didn't wish to offer more to their former daughter-in-law seems mean.

They have offered a 1.5 million house, including the covering of all taxes, utilities, maintenance and insurance. All costs for the two young princes are met by the Court too. How more generous the family of the penniless junior prince has to be? Have they to add five bottles Moët Pommery Rosé and a tray of fresh huitres de Bretagne per month for Madame?

Tessy probably forgot she married the wrong prince, pennywise. The private fortune lies with Prince Jean, then has to be divided by his five children. On his turn Prince Henri will have to distribute his 1/5th part of his father's inheritance amongst his five children as well. The Court document earlier in this thread revealed that Prince Louis was already consuming his future share: the expectation that a fortune would befall him is void.

 

[King of the Jungle]

The children are well provided for, I agree. as they always have been and should be.

Independent home security for Tessy seems tied to her role as mother. What if her sons died or she, herself, suffered an injury in ten years which stopped her from working?

 

[Lori138]

The children are well provided for, I agree. as they always have been and should be.

Independent home security for Tessy seems tied to her role as mother. What if her sons died or she, herself, suffered an injury in ten years which stopped her from working?

So for how long do you support an ex-inlaw seems to be the question. If she becomes incapacitated and cannot work then she should have had the brains to save for such an eventuality as most normal folk would or have insurance to live on etc. I am sure that her sons will provide an allowance for her when they are able, so it is highly unlikely that she will ever be penniless.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The children are well provided for, I agree. as they always have been and should be.

Independent home security for Tessy seems tied to her role as mother. What if her sons died or she, herself, suffered an injury in ten years which stopped her from working?

The couple want to end their marriage. With other words: to return to the independent state before their marriage. But then there is the fruit of their marriage: their children. In the interest of their children, all will be provided until they have left university. That period can be longer than the marriage itself lasted.

You can not expect a former in-law-family to pay a life long for a divorced spouse. Imagine that Tessy is without work at 62 and knocks at the door of the palais grand-ducal? People are always responsible for their own life. In the case of Tessy without work, maybe her adult royal sons can come to help?

 

[princess gertrude]

They have offered a 1.5 million house, including the covering of all taxes, utilities, maintenance and insurance. All costs for the two young princes are met by the Court too. How more generous the family of the penniless junior prince has to be? Have they to add five bottles Moët Pommery Rosé and a tray of fresh huitres de Bretagne per month for Madame?

Tessy probably forgot she married the wrong prince, pennywise. The private fortune lies with Prince Jean, then has to be divided by his five children. On his turn Prince Henri will have to distribute his 1/5th part of his father's inheritance amongst his five children as well. The Court document earlier in this thread revealed that Prince Louis was already consuming his future share: the expectation that a fortune would befall him is void.

I absolutely love your comment! Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Somebody]

Interesting. Marrying into a royal family could almost be equated to joining a business. When one partner leaves a firm they are usually compensated payment for the value they have built.
I think the sad thing is that the Lux RF seems to not value Tessy's efforts as much as she thought it would. The situation has degraded her feelings of self worth and she is behaving like a rug has been pulled from underneath her. The firm could have voluntarily afforded Tessy a home as a measure of goodwill. To see her making crazy public outbursts is worrying. That such a wealthy family didn't wish to offer more to their former daughter-in-law seems mean.

It could be equated to joining a business if your new job becomes to represent the royal (grand ducal in this case) family. It cannot be equated to joining a business at all if your husband had to leave the family business because of (having a child with/marrying) you.

Moreover, as has been pointed out: Tessy was offered a lot, no reason to complain at all unless she is really greedy. Moreover, because of the education and connections her in-laws provided she has a great advantage in finding well paying jobs.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interesting. Marrying into a royal family could almost be equated to joining a business. When one partner leaves a firm they are usually compensated payment for the value they have built. [...]

It could be equated to joining a business if your new job becomes to represent the royal (grand ducal in this case) family. It cannot be equated to joining a business at all if your husband had to leave the family business because of (having a child with/marrying) you.

Yes, neither Princess Tessy nor Prince Louis were working members of "the Firm", a point noted in the judge's findings in relation to the prince's request for a reporting restriction order in December 2017.

His Royal Highness Louis Xavier Marie Guillaume v Her Royal Highness Tessy Princess of Luxembourg & Anor [2017] EWHC 3095 (Fam) (05 December 2017)

Whilst members of the Luxembourg Royal Family, the husband and the wife have no official public role in Luxembourg, much less in this jurisdiction. Within this context, they are private individuals rather than public servants or individuals with a public role in this or another jurisdiction.​

[...] That such a wealthy family didn't wish to offer more to their former daughter-in-law seems mean.

Independent home security for Tessy seems tied to her role as mother. What if her sons died or she, herself, suffered an injury in ten years which stopped her from working?

Placing the voluntary offer of the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess within the context of European royal families, the most recent comparable divorce is probably that of Ari Behn of Norway, who has much in common with Princess Tessy: His (former) spouse is the child of a wealthy European monarch, he is the parent of adolescent children, he was a member of the Royal Family during his marriage, and he pursued a private career rather than carrying out a working role in the royal "family firm".

The same questions (what if his daughters died or he himself suffered an injury which ended his capacity to work) are relevant to Ari Behn. In spite of this, and if my recollection is correct, Mr. Behn had to secure a home for himself following the separation, instead of being provided with a home funded by his royal parents-in-law, which implies his former wife's parents did not make a voluntary offer as generous as the one promised to Princess Tessy by her estranged husband's parents.

 

[iceflower]

.

The decree absolute for Prince Louis and Princess Tessy has been decided and pronounced at the Family Division of the High Court in London today, April 4:


** Press Association article via dailymail: UK judge ends marriage of Prince Louis of Luxembourg and Princess Tessy **

 

[JR76]

.

The decree absolute for Prince Louis and Princess Tessy has been decided and pronounced at the Family Division of the High Court in London today, April 4:


** Press Association article via dailymail: UK judge ends marriage of Prince Louis of Luxembourg and Princess Tessy **

So it's over? No more decree to be expected?

 

[Stefan]

So it's over? No more decree to be expected?

Perhaps a Grand Ducal deecree about her Title?

 

[Princess Larisa]

Is it finally over?
Good lord, never thought I’d be this happy that someone got a divorce.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Perhaps a Grand Ducal deecree about her Title?

In February 2017, the Grand-Ducal Court stated that there would be no special exception for Tessy and accordingly the family bylaws would apply to her title:

It's Official: No Title for Tessy



The family bylaws are that, due to the divorce:

1. Tessy loses her royal titles and styles.

Im Falle einer Ehetrennung (séparation de corps), einer Ehescheidung oder einer Wiederverheiratung nach dem Tod verlieren die Gemahlinnen die ihnen verliehenen Prädikate und Titel.​

2. Tessy ceases to be a member of the grand-ducal family, as she has ceased to be married to a marital descendant of Grand Duchess Charlotte.

Die Großherzogliche Familie (la Famille Grand-Ducale) besteht aus allen direkten ehelichen Nachkommen der Großherzogin Charlotte. Die Ehepartner und Verwitweten der Mitglieder der Großherzoglichen Familie gehören dieser ebenfalls an.​

The bylaws can be found here:
Décret grand-ducal du 18 juin 2012 portant coordination du Statut de famille du 5 mai 1907. - Legilux

A translation from Luxarazzi:
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau

So it's over? No more decree to be expected?

https://www.gov.uk/divorce/apply-for-a-decree-absolute

Yes, the decree absolute is the document which executes the divorce.

 

[Marengo]

An unsurprising final ruling. Let's hope both can move on now.

It seems that it is unclear if she will go by her own name or by the name Tessy de Nassau. I assume that legally she is entitled to her husbands last name? In the Netherlands it is very uncommon to use a husbands last name after a divorce, but I know it happens for example in the US and in Germany more often.

 

[Al_bina]

I am surprised that Justic McDonald finalised the decision so fast. I expected a long-drawn-out drama of appeals.

 

[maria-olivia]

In Luxembourg thay had already the Divorce of Prince Jean Jr and Helène Vestur.
This happen wihout any problem . Hélène was then Auditeur au Conseil d' Etat and now Conseiller d' Etat which is a very important statute for a French lady.

Going to appeal was not a good way for Tessy without any lawyer.


Happy an end to this nasty Divorce.

 

[Stefan]

An unsurprising final ruling. Let's hope both can move on now.

It seems that it is unclear if she will go by her own name or by the name Tessy de Nassau. I assume that legally she is entitled to her husbands last name? In the Netherlands it is very uncommon to use a husbands last name after a divorce, but I know it happens for example in the US and in Germany more often.

In Germany it is normal that divorec people kkeep the name from the marriage and dion't change bacck to their birthname.

As for Tessy i don't thi k she will be able to use "de Nassau". The former wife of Prine jean has gone back to Hélène Vestur and not Hélène Nassau which was what she was called direct after the marriage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It seems that it is unclear if she will go by her own name or by the name Tessy de Nassau. I assume that legally she is entitled to her husbands last name? In the Netherlands it is very uncommon to use a husbands last name after a divorce, but I know it happens for example in the US and in Germany more often.

In Germany it is normal that divorec people kkeep the name from the marriage and dion't change bacck to their birthname.

As for Tessy i don't thi k she will be able to use "de Nassau". The former wife of Prine jean has gone back to Hélène Vestur and not Hélène Nassau which was what she was called direct after the marriage.

While the family bylaws (see my previous post) specify that wives' titles and styles are lost at the moment of divorce, they do not rule out a divorced wife retaining the surname, so my guess is that it is allowed (but of course not required).

In actual practice, it is apparently not within the Grand Duke's power to actually enforce the laws, especially when the individuals involved reside in foreign jurisdictions. The wives of Prince Jean of Luxembourg and Prince Robert of Luxembourg are not legally entitled to use the titles of their husbands (having married without the consent of the grand duke), and the Grand-Ducal Court addresses them as Countess Diane of Nassau and Princess Julie of Nassau (not "of Luxembourg"). But both Diane and Julie use the title Princess of Luxembourg even though they are not entitled to use it.

I am surprised that Justic McDonald finalised the decision so fast. I expected a long-drawn-out drama of appeals.

The Press Association article (see iceflower's post above) says that Tessy changed her mind and decided not to appeal. In any event, with the waiting period expired, Louis and Tessy would have been legally entitled to apply for decree absolute even before the resolution of the financial settlement.

 

[JR76]

According to a short talk Tessy had with Royal Central she'll keep her title until 1 September 2019 and will after that use the name Antony - de Nassau
http://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/lu...is-and-princess-tessy-divorce-official-119196

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

According to a short talk Tessy had with Royal Central she'll keep her title until 1 September 2019 and will after that use the name Antony - de Nassau
EXCLUSIVE: Prince Louis and Princess Tessy divorce official – Royal Central

It must be my Dutch background, where ladies return to their own family name after divorce: it baffles me why an ex-wife would continue the use of a surname which was never hers.

It can be even weirder: after divorcing the third husband, not returning to the own family name but choosing the surname of the second husband instead (Lady Diana's stepmother).

Ms Tessy Antony (formerly princess Louis of Luxembourg) , that is a precise and correct surname, reflecting the real situation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In February 2017, the Grand-Ducal Court stated that there would be no special exception for Tessy and accordingly the family bylaws would apply to her title:

It's Official: No Title for Tessy



The family bylaws are that, due to the divorce:

1. Tessy loses her royal titles and styles.

Im Falle einer Ehetrennung (séparation de corps), einer Ehescheidung oder einer Wiederverheiratung nach dem Tod verlieren die Gemahlinnen die ihnen verliehenen Prädikate und Titel.​

2. Tessy ceases to be a member of the grand-ducal family, as she has ceased to be married to a marital descendant of Grand Duchess Charlotte.

Die Großherzogliche Familie (la Famille Grand-Ducale) besteht aus allen direkten ehelichen Nachkommen der Großherzogin Charlotte. Die Ehepartner und Verwitweten der Mitglieder der Großherzoglichen Familie gehören dieser ebenfalls an.​

The bylaws can be found here:
Décret grand-ducal du 18 juin 2012 portant coordination du Statut de famille du 5 mai 1907. - Legilux

A translation from Luxarazzi:
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau

According to a short talk Tessy had with Royal Central she'll keep her title until 1 September 2019 and will after that use the name Antony - de Nassau
EXCLUSIVE: Prince Louis and Princess Tessy divorce official – Royal Central

As Tessy's statement is contrary to the statement from the Grand-Ducal Court in 2017 that the bylaws would be applied, I wonder whether the Grand Duke has changed his mind and given her an extension on her title to September 1 or whether she intends to use the title without his consent until September 1. Unfortunately, the article does not clarify that point.

 

[maria-olivia]

The future Tessy Anthony- de Nasau will see who are her real friends now she is not a Royal Highness anymore.

 

[Stefan]

Strange that she will continue to be a Princess til 01. September. She had enough time to prepare for that she will loose it at she must have known when the separation was announced that she would not be able to keep it after the divroce is final.

 

[Elenath]

An unsurprising final ruling. Let's hope both can move on now.

It seems that it is unclear if she will go by her own name or by the name Tessy de Nassau. I assume that legally she is entitled to her husbands last name? In the Netherlands it is very uncommon to use a husbands last name after a divorce, but I know it happens for example in the US and in Germany more often.

As far as I know in the Netherlands (I work at a family court) people always get the name they had before they married back. In Germany a woman’s name changes legally when she marries and she can’t get it back, or at least a lot don’t. That’s why, in my region, there are a lot of divorces of women whose first marriage was in Germany whose names look like first-husband-name, born birth-name. Like Jansen geboren Pieters. It gets really complicated when people marry multiple times in countries where women’s names legally change to that of their husbands.