Monaco's succession issues


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yes, I said, Caroline and THEN her Family. I'm on record here. Meaning *if applicable*, then her eldest son Andrea, would be Heir.

So, again, in YOUR scenario, who would succeed if, as you say, "Jacques, Gabriella and Caroline were all to die at this moment".

Very simple question. In a thread named Monaco Succession Issues.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I said, Caroline and THEN her Family. I'm on record here. Meaning *if applicable*, then her eldest son Andrea, would be Heir.

Then I interpreted your original comment correctly.

So, again, in YOUR scenario, who would succeed if, as you say, "Jacques, Gabriella and Caroline were all to die at this moment".

Very simple question. In a thread named Monaco Succession Issues.

I remain confused by and cannot answer your "very simple question" because there is no "YOUR scenario" as your question says.

You stated your firm belief that it was "totally unambiguous" that Andrea, Charlotte and Pierre were still in line to the throne. I asked you for your source. (To be clear, I did not say you were unambiguously wrong.) That was all.

Again, here is my own simple question requesting a source, which you did not answer:

Could you please share the "cut and dried, totally unambiguous" evidence that Princess Caroline's married children asked and received consent under Article 24 of the House Law to conserve their succession rights after marriage?

However, I will amend my question, because I did make an assumption about your beliefs which may or may not be true. Here is my new simple question, to try to understand your argument:

Given that you believe Andrea is still "totally unambiguous[ly]" in line to the throne despite being married, do you believe that Andrea complied with Article 24, or do you believe that Article 24 does not affect Andrea's right to the throne? (Or some other explanation which I have overlooked.)

Edit: That should actually be article 3 of the 2002 house laws; see the clarification below.
 
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you, but "reading between the lines" here, whoever you are "hoping" would succeed, (THAT YOU WONT NAME) If Albert, the Twins, and Caroline were gone. Isn't happening. Under ANY circumstances. Caroline's son Andrea would.

And with that said, I'm done. I enjoy back and forth, but the preposterous daydreams here is beyond me right now.
Have a nice day.
 
Hate to break it to you, but "reading between the lines" here, whoever you are "hoping" would succeed, (THAT YOU WONT NAME) If Albert, the Twins, and Caroline were gone. Isn't happening. Under ANY circumstances. Caroline's son Andrea would.

And with that said, I'm done. I enjoy back and forth, but the preposterous daydreams here is beyond me right now.
Have a nice day.

You are not "reading between the lines" but (again) misrepresenting what I have said (or hope for). The only thing I have been hoping for in my discussion with you is that you would provide the source "(THAT YOU WONT NAME)" (to quote your latest post).

I do not enjoy pointing this out, but it is you who are making a claim for which you will not name your source and refusing to answer any questions about your beliefs about Monaco's succession. (I have answered yours as far as possible, and you know my sources.)

For those who have not read the preceding discussion, here is Article 24 of the House Law again.


Art. 24.

Sans préjudice des dispositions de l’article 21, le mariage d’un membre de la Famille Souveraine contracté sans l’autorisation du Prince Régnant emporte exclusion de l’ordre successoral, tant pour celui qui a contracté ce mariage que pour ses descendants.

Néanmoins, en cas de dissolution du mariage et en l’absence d’enfant issu de ce dernier, l’héritier qui l’a contracté recouvre sa place dans l’ordre successoral si aucune succession n’est intervenue à la date où la dissolution est devenue définitive.

L’autorisation prescrite en vertu du premier alinéa est délivrée par Décision Souveraine.


Translation:

Art. 24.

Without prejudice to the provisions of article 21, the marriage of a member of the Sovereign Family contracted without the authorization of the Reigning Prince excludes the one who contracted the marriage from the order of succession as well as his or her descendants.

However, in the case of dissolution of the marriage and in the absence of any child from it, the heir who contracted it recovers their place in the order of succession, if no succession has occurred before the date on which the dissolution became final.

The authorization according to the first paragraph is issued by Sovereign Decision.

In the interest of accuracy, I should clarify that the quoted version of the marriage law is the current version, which was promulgated by Prince Albert II by his Sovereign Ordinance of June 2, 2015. It therefore applied to the marriages of Pierre Casiraghi in July 2015, Charlotte Casiraghi in June 2019, and Louis Ducruet in July 2019.

For the marriage of Andrea Casiraghi in August 2013, it was actually the previous version of the marriage law that applied. This was promulgated by Prince Rainier III in his Sovereign Ordinance of May 29, 2002. It read:


Article 3 - Aucun Membre de la Famille Souveraine ne peut se marier sans l'autorisation du Prince régnant. Le mariage contracté sans cette autorisation emporte privation de tout droit à la Couronne, tant pour celui qui a contracté ce mariage que pour ses descendants.

Néanmoins, en cas de dissolution du mariage et en l'absence d'enfant issu de ce dernier, l'héritier qui l'aurait contracté recouvrera son droit à la Couronne si aucune succession n'est intervenue entre-temps.

Translation:
Article 3 - No member of the Sovereign Family can marry without the authorization of the reigning Prince. A marriage contracted without such authorization results in a loss of all rights to the Crown for the individual who contracted the marriage as well as for his descendants.

However, in the case of dissolution of the marriage and in the absence of any child from it, the heir who contracted it shall recover their right to the Crown if no succession took place in the meantime.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For what it's worth I took it for granted that after Caroline it was Andrea and his family then Pierre etc who were next in line to the throne. I had no idea there was any issue with this.
 
So Andrea never had permission to marry?

I don't think we know with any certainty whether he was granted official permission to marry or not. The previous version of the marriage law (quoted above), which was in place when Andrea married, did not require the permission to be given in the form of a Sovereign Decision. So it seems possible that permission could have been given privately, without any public announcement.

Unlike some other monarchies, the Princely Palace of Monaco does not publish the line of succession to the throne on its website, and I have yet to find a trustworthy source.

I am aware of the English Wikipedia article that claims Andrea and his children to be in the line of succession. However, it does not cite any sources for this claim, and it does not mention the issue of whether Andrea's marriage received permission, so they seem to be guessing just like the rest of us.

Some have argued that Albert II must have granted permission because he allowed Andrea (and his siblings) to marry in the Palace, but being happy for the couples and hosting their weddings is not the same as giving legal permission for them to remain in the line of succession. There have been cases in other royal families (Netherlands, Denmark) of royals who married with the monarch's blessing (and in some cases even had grand royal weddings) but nevertheless were not granted legal permission to marry, simply because they were not considered important enough to stay in the line of succession.

For what it is worth, poster melina premiere (who is sadly now deceased) said she had read an interview with Prince Albert II in which he stated his nephews did not ask for his permission to marry, but she did not give his exact wording (and others have pointed out that he could theoretically have given permission without being asked).
 
Last edited:
sophie25, Exactly. There hasn't been since The Twins Birth. Prior to that it would be Caroline, then Andrea.

It is a moot point in any case now.
 
Yes the only reason to bring up his age is to suggest there is a concern he will die before his kid comes of age. He could be 20 and die from an accident. The age is not a matter. We're not talking Margrethe, Harald and so on.


Do you need clarity on who is heir in Spain? Netherlands? Sweden etc.? If not then why Monaco. Because there is a clear legal sign of succession. There is no ambiguity to who comes after Jacques.

I have never even mentioned Alexandre. He isn't in the line of succession so therefore I never mentioned him. How is that bias?

The other countries have clear successions. Monaco does not, since the status of almost all the heirs except Jacques, Gabriella, and Caroline has not been clarified.

You certainly did mention him in your previous reply (post 667):
No need to search for a new heir.Not going to choose Albert's illegitamite son as a regent for his half-brother over one of Jacque's aunts or cousins who have grown up in the royal life.
 
sophie25, Exactly. There hasn't been since The Twins Birth. Prior to that it would be Caroline, then Andrea.

Only if Andrea received permission to marry under the then Article 3 of the House Law. Otherwise, it would have been Caroline, then Pierre at the time of the twins' births in December 2014.

(I know that you strongly disagree and believe Andrea remains entitled to the throne whether he received permission or not. But as you have refused to explain why you believe the House Laws do not apply to him, I will continue to take what the House Laws say at face value.)

Edit: Corrected Charlotte to Pierre.

The other countries have clear successions. Monaco does not, since the status of almost all the heirs except Jacques, Gabriella, and Caroline has not been clarified.

It is at least clear (unless there is something I am missing) that Alexandra remains in the line of succession to the throne. As with the marriage of Caroline and Stefano Casiraghi, the marriage of Caroline and Ernst August von Hannover must also have received permission according to the House Laws, since Caroline was referred to as the Hereditary Princess in the first decade of her brother's reign (at least, I remember seeing a photograph of her in front of a sign referring to her as Hereditary Princess posted somewhere). So we may infer that Alexandra was born into the line of succession, and as Alexandra herself is unmarried, she could not have lost her position by marriage.

The version of the marriage law that was in force before 2002 (thus, the version applicable to Caroline's marriages) can be found at the below link (see Article 3 of the old house law). Note that under this version, marrying without permission had much harsher consequences than the 2002 or 2015 versions.

https://journaldemonaco.gouv.mc/Journaux/1882/Journal-1258
 
Last edited:
When prince Jacques will be the prince sovereign, will princess Caroline, princess Stephanie and their children be out of the line of succession ? Like it was the case for princess Antoinette and her children?

Yes Princess Antoinette, Baroness of Massy was the older sister of Prince Rainier and along with her children were included in the line of succession to the Monegasque Throne until the death of her brother, Prince Rainier III.

Her children were excluded after Rainier's death. Now they are cousins (not nephews or nieces) of the ruling Prince.

I am fairly certain that Princess Antoinette's children, who were born before their parents' marriage, were never in line to the throne, even during the reign of Prince Rainier III.

It has been the law since 1986 that children born out of wedlock become legitimate upon their parents' later marriage, without exception:

Monegasque law does not make children of adulterous relationships ineligible to be legitimated.

Refer to the laws of legitimation here, particularly Article 226-9:

https://legimonaco.mc/code/code-civil/#wbwfCVEpb7chXLtLTS0ari


Article 226-9

La légitimation peut bénéficier à tous les enfants nés hors du mariage pourvu que, par reconnaissance volontaire ou par jugement, leur filiation ait été légalement établie à l'égard de leurs deux auteurs.

Article 226-9

Legitimation may be applied to all children born outside of marriage provided that, by voluntary recognition or by judgment, their filiation is legally established in regard to their two parents.​


This has been the law since 1986, so not a recent development. Can anyone explain why the myth that children of adulterous relationships cannot be legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage is so widely accepted as fact?

However, Princess Antoinette had her children out of wedlock, and subsequently married their father, in an earlier time period when different laws were in place. At the time, children born from extramarital affairs were not necessarily made legitimate by their parents' marriage (it depended on various criteria).

The fact that Princess Antoinette's children never took their father's surname suggests that they were not legitimated, and therefore not in line to the throne.

In any case, under the House Laws, Princess Antoinette herself would have lost her rights to the throne if the marriage took place without the formal consent of her brother Prince Rainier III (see the previous post).

As always, please feel free to ask me to supply the sources for my post.
 
Back
Top Bottom