The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 02-02-2019, 12:29 PM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 5,305
and champagne and Chanel bags ...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 02-02-2019, 12:43 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Tessy clearly sees it as fair that the Grand Ducal Family pay for her upkeep whereas the British law places the emphasis on the spouses assets not those of his family.
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 02-02-2019, 12:49 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addapalla View 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 from the royal family as much as they were divorcing a husband.
An important difference is that those ladies became official representing members of the family as their husbands were high up in the line of succession, so yes, their divorce also included breaking with royal life. In Tessy's case her marriage to Louis clearly did not include becoming an official member of the grand ducal family. Instead, Louis gave up his succession rights because he had fathered a child with her before marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 02-02-2019, 01:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyFinn View Post
Tessy at her Instagram
when my divorce started more than three years ago I realised that the only thing that could get me through this hell is sports.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BtYgjK5F...=1j3lf7esi8ol1

And Instagram!
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 02-02-2019, 01:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addapalla View 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 from the 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.
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 02-02-2019, 03:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Given that neither Louis nor Tessy is a British subject, I don't think it's relevant that in Britain women take their husband's surname and completely give up their maiden name. This is not how it works in Luxembourg. If I've been informed correctly, Luxembourg women revert back to their maiden name after a divorce (well, Tessy is already doing that before her divorce is finalized but strangely combining it with her husband's titles...).
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 02-02-2019, 04:13 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Bay Area, United States
Posts: 3,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
An important difference is that those ladies became official representing members of the family as their husbands were high up in the line of succession, so yes, their divorce also included breaking with royal life. In Tessy's case her marriage to Louis clearly did not include becoming an official member of the grand ducal family. Instead, Louis gave up his succession rights because he had fathered a child with her before marriage.
Also Luxembourg is small and doesn't need many full-time royals. Even if Louis and Tessy had married without surprise baby and kept his place in succession, they wouldn't have regular official duties. Look at Felix and Claire who appear only occasionally outside of major events (Octave, National Day).
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 02-02-2019, 04:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,196
Well it doesn't matter what historically people have done, if Tessy is as smart as people and she herself make out she should surely have researched current British law before seeking a divorce? Its pretty clear to most people that the Courts base decisions on the spouses assets, not those of his or her family or what they might inherit in the future or what their families may gift to them. Diana and Sarah both got financial settlements based on their husbands wealth hence why Diana got much more than Sarah. As any monarch could do, QE2 offered more in addition - a Trust Fund for Beatrice and Eugenie in respect of Fergie and an office and KP apartment to Diana. That was in addition. Likewise the Grand Ducal Family could offer Tessy more than the court rules, though her constant put downs and vanity seeking intagramming make that IMO unlikely.
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 02-02-2019, 06:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Given that neither Louis nor Tessy is a British subject, I don't think it's relevant that in Britain women take their husband's surname and completely give up their maiden name. This is not how it works in Luxembourg. If I've been informed correctly, Luxembourg women revert back to their maiden name after a divorce (well, Tessy is already doing that before her divorce is finalized but strangely combining it with her husband's titles...).
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Likewise the Grand Ducal Family could offer Tessy more than the court rules, though her constant put downs and vanity seeking intagramming make that IMO unlikely.
They did offer to pay for a home for her to reside in rent-free for twelve years.
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 02-02-2019, 09:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Bay Area, United States
Posts: 3,567
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 02-03-2019, 04:20 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Well it doesn't matter what historically people have done, if Tessy is as smart as people and she herself make out she should surely have researched current British law before seeking a divorce? Its pretty clear to most people that the Courts base decisions on the spouses assets, not those of his or her family or what they might inherit in the future or what their families may gift to them. Diana and Sarah both got financial settlements based on their husbands wealth hence why Diana got much more than Sarah. As any monarch could do, QE2 offered more in addition - a Trust Fund for Beatrice and Eugenie in respect of Fergie and an office and KP apartment to Diana. That was in addition. Likewise the Grand Ducal Family could offer Tessy more than the court rules, though her constant put downs and vanity seeking intagramming make that IMO unlikely.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 02-03-2019, 02:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prisma View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prisma View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 02-03-2019, 03:07 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 02-03-2019, 03:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 02-03-2019, 03:35 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,700


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 02-03-2019, 04:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post


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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addapalla View 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:31 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:36 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:43 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 02-18-2019, 12:07 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 488
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?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince Louis, Princess Tessy and Family, Current Events 1: March 2007 - April 2017 Marengo Current Events Archive 534 04-03-2017 05:24 AM
Prince Louis of Luxembourg and Tessy Antony: September 29, 2006 norwegianne Royal Weddings 211 09-29-2016 03:40 PM
Prince Louis and Tessy de Nassau Welcome Second Son, Noah: September 21, 2007 liv Prince Felix, Princess Claire, Prince Louis, Princess Alexandra, Prince Sebastien and Families 62 07-13-2008 03:37 PM
Baby Boy for Prince Louis & Tessy Antony - Gabriel: March 12, 2006 swissluxi Prince Felix, Princess Claire, Prince Louis, Princess Alexandra, Prince Sebastien and Families 262 03-13-2007 08:54 AM
Prince Louis and Tessy Antony are Getting Married: June 20, 2006 swissluxi Prince Felix, Princess Claire, Prince Louis, Princess Alexandra, Prince Sebastien and Families 203 09-29-2006 01:14 PM




Popular Tags
aif biography bracelets british royal family camilla clothes commonwealth games current events current events thread dailyfail discussão duchess of cornwall duchess of sussex duchessofsussex duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh fashion felipe vi germany gordon harry and meghan head of the house her children history interesting facts iñaki urdangarín jack brooksbank jacobite juan carlos lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter lineage meghan markle modernization nelson mandela bay patron plantagenets porphyria prince aymeric prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince peter princess princesses princess louise princess royal public image queen elisabeth queen letizia queen mary of teck relationship royal royal ancestry royal ancestry; oscar and sophia royal family royal geneology royal wedding rumania sarah duchess of york state visit surname swedish royal family tom bower wedding windsor castle windsor wedding windy city wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises