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

[moby]

I don´t understand who and why this annulment thing here was brought up..?! This was a regular marriage like many others. And like many others these days, it failed. So the only possible way to seperate it is a divorce. Neither of the pair has been forced to do anything (FEELING to be obliged to get married because ones father is a catholic reigning Grand Duke is no reason enough...). The 2 sons are proof this marriage has been "executed"... So why on earth any idea of an annulment?!

Because it's simple, if Louis wants an annulment, he could get one.

I personally know a couple, both with influential parents, who've had an annulment with three kids born after marriage. And this was back in the 90s when supposedly annulments are more difficult to get. It happens.

 

[Pranter]

That doesn't mean there weren't legitimate reasons for them to obtain one moby.

Unless we are party to the tribunal and all the inside info we don't know what all is going on.


LaRae

 

[Dalriada]

Because it's simple, if Louis wants an annulment, he could get one.



I personally know a couple, both with influential parents, who've had an annulment with three kids born after marriage. And this was back in the 90s when supposedly annulments are more difficult to get. It happens.

A religious annulment is still quite a rarity nowadays even though numbers are rising because the laity are more educated to pursue the process. It is still a relatively long process compared to a civil divorce. I am no way familiar with the civil code of Luxembourg but normally a civil annulment in any western country is quicker than an annulment in the Catholic Church. This particular couple have opted for a civil divorce but we are unaware if they have any conditions for a civil or religious annulment (although royal forced arranged marriages are prime examples). We still don't know the reasons for the civil divorce and we probably won't know very much more very soon but I doubt Prince Louis could have received an annulment civil or otherwise just because he wanted one.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Because it's simple, if Louis wants an annulment, he could get one.

I personally know a couple, both with influential parents, who've had an annulment with three kids born after marriage. And this was back in the 90s when supposedly annulments are more difficult to get. It happens.

Exactly.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI both signalled that they intended to tighten up on the annulment process during their pontificates, but the dirty little secret in the Church has always been that the more $$ fame and influence you have, the likelihood of having your marriage annulled if you want one increases. I agree that if Prince Louis of Luxembourg wants his marriage annulled in order to marry again in the Church it will happen. A loophole will be found for him.

And I say this as a practicing, believing Roman Catholic.

The only two fairly recent cases I can think of that were the exception were Joseph Kennedy II,(son of the late RFK) who petitioned Rome to annul his first marriage to Sheila Brewster Rauch(ironically a non Catholic) and she fought him tooth and nail so he didn't get one.

Caroline of Monaco also had a long, rough road(13 years!) getting her first marriage annulled and it only happened after the death of her second husband.

But these cases took place during the pontificate of John Paul II. It might be easier with the current pope.

 

[Countessmeout]

A religious annulment is still quite a rarity nowadays even though numbers are rising because the laity are more educated to pursue the process. It is still a relatively long process compared to a civil divorce. I am no way familiar with the civil code of Luxembourg but normally a civil annulment in any western country is quicker than an annulment in the Catholic Church. This particular couple have opted for a civil divorce but we are unaware if they have any conditions for a civil or religious annulment (although royal forced arranged marriages are prime examples). We still don't know the reasons for the civil divorce and we probably won't know very much more very soon but I doubt Prince Louis could have received an annulment civil or otherwise just because he wanted one.

A civil annulment may be quicker, but it would be of little use if either wished to remarry in a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church only recognizes a church annulment. If they are not willing to wait for a religious annulment of get turned down, a civil divorce would be enough. It wouldn't mean they couldn't get married, just they would have to get remarried in a civil ceremony, or convert. How the Catholic royal family would view that is another matter.

 

[Pranter]

Countessmeout, as a Catholic parent I would be less than happy about it...I am going to imagine that his family, if they are as faithful/devout as I hear, wouldn't be thrilled about it either.

LaRae

 

[Sancia]

A civil annulment may be quicker, but it would be of little use if either wished to remarry in a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church only recognizes a church annulment. If they are not willing to wait for a religious annulment of get turned down, a civil divorce would be enough. It wouldn't mean they couldn't get married, just they would have to get remarried in a civil ceremony, or convert. How the Catholic royal family would view that is another matter.

The catholic canon law has set a requirement for couples asking for a declaration of nullity (which is different from an annulment) : the divorce must have been previously granted by a civil court. If the couple is still civilly married, the case can't be introduced.

 

[moby]

The common practice for most separated Catholic couples is--get a civil divorce now and should they wish to, get an annulment from the Church almost immediately after divorce. Sometimes a divorced couple dallies about in getting an annulment until either party meets a Catholic partner that they want to marry in Church. If the annulment process takes too long, as is usually the case, they wait until their previous marriage is annulled before getting married civilly and in Church with new partner. More common, however, is do civil marriage with new partner first then wait until the annulment of previous marriage is granted then get married in Church with new partner.

For sure Louis and Tessy will get a civil divorce first but I don't think we'll know if they'll pursue annulment until, some years later, it gets granted and announced. Also I think it will largely depend also on Louis--if for instance, he meets someone with a background like Stephanie de Lannoy--I'd bet he'll seek an annulment from his previous marriage so they can marry in Church. If he meets someone not Catholic, worldly and thoroughly modern, then current divorce is more than fine.

 

[Countessmeout]

The catholic canon law has set a requirement for couples asking for a declaration of nullity (which is different from an annulment) : the divorce must have been previously granted by a civil court. If the couple is still civilly married, the case can't be introduced.

We're not talking nullify. Nullify only applies if there is a legal reason for the marriage to be invalid. Like if one was already married. Or the person who married them was not legally able to.

We are talking an annulment here. The point I made, and annulments require a civil divorce, is at a Civil annulment would be useless. It isn't recognized. If either wishes to be married in the church again, they would require a civil divorce and a religious annulment.


Moby.... Modern women dont want to get married in the church? That seems a bit bias at best. ,any moden worldly women go to church, and want to be married religiously. Even ceremonies held outside a church, are often performed by a priest. A modern wedding in some trendy loft, or beachborvso on, are still often conducted by a priest, minister, pastor.

And what about Louis? Doesn't he have a voice? You assume it has only to do with her. He grew up in a staunchly Catholic family. He may wish to remarry infront of a priest.

 

[Sancia]

We're not talking nullify. Nullify only applies if there is a legal reason for the marriage to be invalid. Like if one was already married. Or the person who married them was not legally able to.

We are talking an annulment here. The point I made, and annulments require a civil divorce, is at a Civil annulment would be useless. It isn't recognized. If either wishes to be married in the church again, they would require a civil divorce and a religious annulment.

I read the whole discussion once again and the point is indeed a religious nullity. There is not - strictly speaking - such thing like a catholic annulment. What is commonly and mistakenly called a religious annulment is a declaration of nullity, or a decree of nullity. Catholic nullity can't be in any way compared to a civil annulment.

 

[moby]

Moby.... Modern women dont want to get married in the church? That seems a bit bias at best. ,any moden worldly women go to church, and want to be married religiously. Even ceremonies held outside a church, are often performed by a priest. A modern wedding in some trendy loft, or beachborvso on, are still often conducted by a priest, minister, pastor.

And what about Louis? Doesn't he have a voice? You assume it has only to do with her. He grew up in a staunchly Catholic family. He may wish to remarry infront of a priest.

Of course he may wish to and then he may not. "Modern" women may want to get married in Church, and they might also be perfectly happy with civil weddings. I'm saying there are definitely bigger chances of a church wedding if Louis meets somebody say, from a deeply devout Catholic background who's never before been married and who has a very conservative family.

It will be interesting, indeed, either party's future choice of partner and what that implies about their past and what they want for their future. I mean Louis could meet a Meghan Markle v.2, that would be interesting indeed in an unexpected way.

(On a side note: Oh to be royal and have people speculate about future weddings when the ink isn't even dry on your divorce papers )

 

[Countessmeout]

I read the whole discussion once again and the point is indeed a religious nullity. There is not - strictly speaking - such thing like a catholic annulment. What is commonly and mistakenly called a religious annulment is a declaration of nullity, or a decree of nullity. Catholic nullity can't be in any way compared to a civil annulment.

Perhaps it's an issue of countries and terms. You will find the Catholic Church does in fact (at least in north america and other areas) use the term annulment. In most places, like Canada, nullify and annulment are interchangeable terms. As I have repeated several times, a civil annulment is not recognized by the church as not the same thing. The links I have posted in previous posts, all come from North American Catholic diocese and use the term annulment.

 

[AdmirerUS]

A civil annulment may be quicker, but it would be of little use if either wished to remarry in a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church only recognizes a church annulment. If they are not willing to wait for a religious annulment of get turned down, a civil divorce would be enough. It wouldn't mean they couldn't get married, just they would have to get remarried in a civil ceremony, or convert. How the Catholic royal family would view that is another matter.

Well, Catholics who divorce and are not eligible for annulment (as would likely be the case here) and remarry and continue to engage in all marital activities are technically living in a state of sin.
This varies by diocese, but I have family members and friends who were denied the sacraments because they married outside the church after divorce and engaged in sexual contact. I am not lying when I say that when my male relative's health became bad enough that he could no longer have sexual congress, they were allowed to confess their sins and receive the sacraments once again. Yes they applied for an annulment and yes they were turned down.
I can imagine the church allowing these two to attend mass but never again receive the sacraments if they remarry.
Else-wise, they could buy an annulment, if that is still possible. One would hope not, as the ethics of this are so very questionable. Plus ca change.

 

[Sancia]

Perhaps it's an issue of countries and terms. You will find the Catholic Church does in fact (at least in north america and other areas) use the term annulment. In most places, like Canada, nullify and annulment are interchangeable terms. As I have repeated several times, a civil annulment is not recognized by the church as not the same thing. The links I have posted in previous posts, all come from North American Catholic diocese and use the term annulment.

Here in France the Catholic Church avoids at must to use the term annulment. Hence my confusion : we didn't understand each other. Now I do better understand your point. However, I had been told a civil annulment, even if it is not recognized by the church, could be us like an argument in a religious nullity process.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't think it is too important for the couple to get an annulment. To begin with, they already ignored all Catholic teachings by engaging in marriage while they already got a child outside marriage.

Without an annulment one can remarry without any problem. Like in almost all countries on the Continent, it is only the civil wedding which is legally binding. Divorced today? You can remarry tomorrow if you wish. The state does not care at all a about the status of a matrimony in a religious community. For the State it is of zero comma zero interest what the priest in the Catholic Church, the Rabbi in the Synagogue or the Imam in the Mosque thinks about the status of a religious matrimony.

 

[Katrianna]

That's my understanding.

 

[AristoCat]

To me, the real question is WHY are they getting a divorce?

There doesn't seem to be any kind of abuse, no conflicts (as far as I can see), and to me, growing apart really isn't enough to justify breaking up a marriage. As for public life, they are not at all a royal family with a hyper-power level of fame and they are not under pressure to do numerous duties and perform for the public and cameras. No point in basically leaving a marriage. He did renounce his place in the succession and basically has been a solid, stable husband for her.

She can easily lead a more independent life in the bounds of marriage and enjoy success in her own right.

Call me old-fashioned, but this is such a pointless divorce.

 

[Countessmeout]

I don't think it is too important for the couple to get an annulment. To begin with, they already ignored all Catholic teachings by engaging in marriage while they already got a child outside marriage.

Without an annulment one can remarry without any problem. Like in almost all countries on the Continent, it is only the civil wedding which is legally binding. Divorced today? You can remarry tomorrow if you wish. The state does not care at all a about the status of a matrimony in a religious commuunity. For the State it is of zero comma zero interest what the priest in the Catholic Church, the Rabbi in the Synagogue or the Imam in the Mosque thinks about the status of a religious matrimony.

Having sex before marriage is against teachings. Not the getting married part. The Catholic Church would definitely encourage a pregnsnt couple to wed.


It's not a matter of state politics or rules. It's about tradition. It's bout the family beliefs. It is the fact that Louis has been raised in an extremely Catholic fa,ily in a very Catholic country. So the question is not foes the government care about the state of marriage in the eyes of the church. For a catholic family it us about how the church views civil unions. Their son being able to take part in sacraments, any possible future grandchildren being able yo be baptized, and do on. These are all important to very religious families such as his.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Having sex before marriage is against teachings. Not the getting married part. The Catholic Church would definitely encourage a pregnsnt couple to wed.


It's not a matter of state politics or rules. It's about tradition. It's bout the family beliefs. It is the fact that Louis has been raised in an extremely Catholic fa,ily in a very Catholic country. So the question is not foes the government care about the state of marriage in the eyes of the church. For a catholic family it us about how the church views civil unions. Their son being able to take part in sacraments, any possible future grandchildren being able yo be baptized, and do on. These are all important to very religious families such as his.

There are various divorces and remarriages in the family. The "extremely catholic"-label is mostly connected with the most visible member of a royal house: the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg, King Baudouin of the Belgians. Both gentlemen gambled with their thrones by refusing to give assent to legislation approved by democratic elected institutions. The successors of Baudouin, King Albert II and King Philippe are miles away from that "very Catholic" label. The children of the Grand-Duke seems not to have that preoccupation that a Royal Family is the same as a Holy Family.

 

[Dalriada]

Having sex before marriage is against teachings. Not the getting married part. The Catholic Church would definitely encourage a pregnsnt couple to wed.





It's not a matter of state politics or rules. It's about tradition. It's bout the family beliefs. It is the fact that Louis has been raised in an extremely Catholic fa,ily in a very Catholic country. So the question is not foes the government care about the state of marriage in the eyes of the church. For a catholic family it us about how the church views civil unions. Their son being able to take part in sacraments, any possible future grandchildren being able yo be baptized, and do on. These are all important to very religious families such as his.

I would think that a young couple might feel pressurised into marriage after the birth of a child regardless of all appearances that convey that it was completely voluntary. Tradition, religious beliefs and in rare cases patriotic duty could be contributing factors to these pressures. A young woman having just given birth is possibly not always Psychologically tough enough to withstand these pressures. As the young couple grow and develop psychologically and socially, they might well see that decisions have been made in haste. A good canon church law lawyer who has sound training in modern psychology could easily argue a good case to nullify a marriage which was contracted when immaturity is accepted as a state of mind and then there are obvious pressures from the heights of a titled family. Just a thought.

 

[lucien]

Sad this all happens,a divorce is not why people get together.Not even as they were still very much kids as they married.Then still,I'm surprised they stayed together as long as they did.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is sad to see Prince Louis and Ms Antony to divorce, but that they became parents at such a young age and therefore felt pressure to arrange the situation (and thus engage into marriage) was maybe not the best start. At the other hand: there are also couples which have been together for 10 years, of which 8 years of cohabitation and suddenly see a marriage fail in the second year of their marriage. It is difficult to predict such things.

 

[Sancia]

I don't think it is too important for the couple to get an annulment. To begin with, they already ignored all Catholic teachings by engaging in marriage while they already got a child outside marriage.

There is absolutely no catholic teachings preventing a couple already having children (together or not) from engaging in marriage. Having children is not amongst diriment impediments specified in the Code of Canon law.
It is true, however, they did have a child outside marriage. They did not choose to have an abortion and gave life to this child. Moreover, there is absolutely no rule in the Catholic church saying a pregnant woman should marry the father of his child before the church. Marrying during the pregnancy only to prevent the child being born outside marriage can be an argument in a nullity case.

I would add that Catholic teachings are not all about moral and sexual teachings. There are some catholic royals and noble people who married and only after had children and who are said to be devout catholic whose professional activities are problematic (to say the least) regarding to the constant social teaching of the Catholic church. For more than a century, the successives popes had many teachings far deeper than "don't have sex outside marriage and marry if you are pregnant".

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I am a Catholic myself but it is mainly the Catholic culture which attracts me. The mystique, the scent of incense, the latin hymns, the processions. Like most Catholics I am totally sceptic towards the teachings. Thou shalt not this. Thou shalt not that. Spoken by (alleged) celibatarian men in a dress. Hmmm.... right....

I guess there will not be a big difference between my catholicism (which is pretty similar for most catholics in Western Europe) and that of Louis and Tessy. The sight of Albert de Monaco bowing down to kiss the Archbishop's ring when he devoutly attends Mass of course is just because that is what is expected, that is what is tradition. I doubt it goes far deeper than this for Louis, Tessy or Albert.

 

[Sancia]

That is really something I can't understand. Catholic culture would be nothing if there had been no Incarnation of God into the Christ, no death on the Cross, no Resurrection of Jesus Christ, no Gospels reporting his life and his teachings. If there had been no God and no Christ to adore for His humility, all the pomp and the liturgy, all the magnificent churches, all the hymns, nothing would have ever existed. Christian faith is an incarnated one, not one more religious practice or mystery with no consequences for the daily and common life. That is why I am a catholic. I like liturgy and hymns, but I like them for they make me closer to God, in which I believe.

 

[Sancia]

I don't think it is too important for the couple to get an annulment. To begin with, they already ignored all Catholic teachings by engaging in marriage while they already got a child outside marriage.

I am a Catholic myself but it is mainly the Catholic culture which attracts me. The mystique, the scent of incense, the latin hymns, the processions. Like most Catholics I am totally sceptic towards the teachings. Thou shalt not this. Thou shalt not that. Spoken by (alleged) celibatarian men in a dress. Hmmm.... right....

I guess there will not be a big difference between my catholicism (which is pretty similar for most catholics in Western Europe) and that of Louis and Tessy. The sight of Albert de Monaco bowing down to kiss the Archbishop's ring when he devoutly attends Mass of course is just because that is what is expected, that is what is tradition. I doubt it goes far deeper than this for Louis, Tessy or Albert.

Isn't it a little contradictory ?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Isn't it a little contradictory ?

No, not at all. Like almost all Catholics I never asked to be a Catholic to begin with, but soit... I am a Catholic. For the rest I am practically agnost and my guess is that 90% of West-European Catholics are the same. They are Catholic "because we are what we simply are" without loosing any minute of sleeping about the teachings of the Roman-Catholic Church.

So my guess is that Prince Louis and Ms Antony want to divorce indeed and an annulment... most likely they could not care less, as by far most Catholics will do. I still have to meet the first Catholic in my almost completely Catholic surroundings which indeed petitioned the Diocesan Tribunal for an annulment of marriage...

 

[maria-olivia]

Five Catholic Monarchs and divorces in each Family :

Spain : Infanta Elena and most of the Children of Infanta Pilar
Monaco : Princess Antoinette 2x , Princess Caroline, Princess Stephanie 2x
Belgium : Princess Marie Christine
Liechtenstein : Prince Alexander and Princess Maria Pia of Italy
Luxembourg : Prince jean and Prince Louis.

As far as I know only Princess Caroline received had an annulment when she lost her second husband and the Count of Paris has his annulment after a lot of years.

 

[Stefan]

Five Catholic Monarchs and divorces in each Family :

Spain : Infanta Elena and most of the Children of Infanta Pilar
Monaco : Princess Antoinette 2x , Princess Caroline, Princess Stephanie 2x
Belgium : Princess Marie Christine
Liechtenstein : Prince Alexander and Princess Maria Pia of Italy
Luxembourg : Prince jean and Prince Louis.

As far as I know only Princess Caroline received had an annulment when she lost her second husband and the Count of Paris has his annulment after a lot of years.

The Princely Family of Liechtensgtein is huge with lots of members so no surprise that there are some who are divorced. But none in the direct Family. None of the descendants of the late Fürst Franz Josef II. and Fürstin Gina are divorced.

 

[Sancia]

No, not at all. Like almost all Catholics I never asked to be a Catholic to begin with, but soit... I am a Catholic. For the rest I am practically agnost and my guess is that 90% of West-European Catholics are the same. They are Catholic "because we are what we simply are" without loosing any minute of sleeping about the teachings of the Roman-Catholic Church.

So my guess is that Prince Louis and Ms Antony want to divorce indeed and an annulment... most likely they could not care less, as by far most Catholics will do. I still have to meet the first Catholic in my almost completely Catholic surroundings which indeed petitioned the Diocesan Tribunal for an annulment of marriage...

They may very well care, although they married after Gabriel's birth.

A few people around me already went through a declaration of nullity. Two friends will take the same path when their divorce is set.