The will of Lord John Grimaldi of Monaco (1454)

[Danielane]

Monaco is not member of the EU. Not at all.

[paca]

You are staring to sound like a broken record when you keep repeating the same things over and over again. We are not stupid. We do get your point, but it just simply doesn't go with the facts. Besides just for the record MC is not a member of the EU and Frances laws do not reglement MC law, even though they are similar in a lot of ways. But unlike in most other western countries, Monaco does prefer male dominance, which makes it also easier for a father to obtain custody. A child automatically receives the fathers name, even if the parents are not married. THEy are bureaucratically handled under their father (health insurance etc.). MC is a far cry from equality between men and women (we are about in the 50s here). It is very recent that a Monegasque woman can pass her citizenship to her children, when her usband is not monegasque. Hence at the time of their birth (if they would have been born to regular people) Stephs children would have been considered as French citizens. Same goes for the Casiraghis, they would have been considered Italians. Just so you get your facts straight.

Oh and btw you seem to be ok with France changing it's laws and forcing other countries to change theirs. So how come you can not accept the changes that have been made in MC? You might want to make up your mind about whether you want those ancient laws to rule or the recent ones. You can't just go about and pick which ever law suits your purposes.

[Grace]

Originally Posted by Louis14

Since their advent on the throne of Monaco, Grimaldi never have exclude natural children from the inheritance order.

I'm sorry but you have to check your sources: Charlotte, Rainier's mother, being a natural child, was excluded from succession and her father had to adopt her in order to make her his legitimate heir. If she had been in line already, her father wouldn't have felt the need to adopt her but would have just recognized her.

As many said, Monaco is not member of EU, but it is member of the Council of Europe, the instituion that stresses more the respect of human rights, so the issue of men/women equality its bound to come up (but the same can be said for the majority of the other monarchies in Europe; I still think it is more important that women achieve equality in Parliament rapresentation than on throne that nowadays have very little political relevance!)...

kisses

[acid_rain3075]

Originally Posted by Louis14

Since their advent on the throne of Monaco, Grimaldi never have exclude natural children from the inheritance order.

Legitimists militate for the application of this Fundamental Rule of succession which always made the originality of the Grimaldi dynasty of Monaco.Our reasoning applies to all Grimaldi children concerned, Alexandre, Camille, Jazmin (if it was proven that she was Prince Albert's daughter).

In addition, Monaco in its membership of the EU, cannot be unaware of the will of the EU to promote total equality between men and women, andbetween all the children, whether they were born or not from the wedding union.

France has changed his law, the other EU countries will not have another political choice only to follow the way traced by France.

Louis-le-14ème.

Militate? What, are you and the other Legitimists going to blow up a car in front of the Palace if P. Albert doesn't make Alexandre heir? Please give me break! As for the EU, yes, I'm sure they want there to be an equality between the sexes! But I doubt they are willing to go into a certain country and demand that all children (no matter what sex, legitimate or not) be put into a line of succession! As far as I see it, they haven't done that to any monarchy thus-far! I don't see Britain and Spain being forced to have a full linear line of succession! So, tell me, why would they single out Monaco? And once again, laws that govern France, do just that, govern France! The laws there do not apply to other nations! Just because a country has become a member of the EU doesn't mean that that country has to adopt the laws of France! I'm sure even in the EU a nation has the right to decide who it's leaders are going to be! Yes in a monarchy it's a bit different but you know whatever!

[acid_rain3075]

Originally Posted by Grace

I'm sorry but you have to check your sources: Charlotte, Rainier's mother, being a natural child, was excluded from succession and her father had to adopt her in order to make her his legitimate heir. If she had been in line already, her father wouldn't have felt the need to adopt her but would have just recognized her.

As many said, Monaco is not member of EU, but it is member of the Council of Europe, the instituion that stresses more the respect of human rights, so the issue of men/women equality its bound to come up (but the same can be said for the majority of the other monarchies in Europe; I still think it is more important that women achieve equality in Parliament rapresentation than on throne that nowadays have very little political relevance!)...

kisses

Yes another good point! Charlotte was in-fact adopted to make her legitimate! If this will were actually inforced then she would have already been legitimate and her father wouldn't have had to adopt her. But of course that wasn't the case!

Anyways, now I'm confused! louis14 is bring up the EU! If Monaco isn't a member then why is it being brought up?

[pinklady1991]

Originally Posted by paca

You are staring to sound like a broken record when you keep repeating the same things over and over again. We are not stupid. We do get your point, but it just simply doesn't go with the facts. Besides just for the record MC is not a member of the EU and Frances laws do not reglement MC law, even though they are similar in a lot of ways. But unlike in most other western countries, Monaco does prefer male dominance, which makes it also easier for a father to obtain custody. A child automatically receives the fathers name, even if the parents are not married. THEy are bureaucratically handled under their father (health insurance etc.). MC is a far cry from equality between men and women (we are about in the 50s here). It is very recent that a Monegasque woman can pass her citizenship to her children, when her usband is not monegasque. Hence at the time of their birth (if they would have been born to regular people) Stephs children would have been considered as French citizens. Same goes for the Casiraghis, they would have been considered Italians. Just so you get your facts straight.

Oh and btw you seem to be ok with France changing it's laws and forcing other countries to change theirs. So how come you can not accept the changes that have been made in MC? You might want to make up your mind about whether you want those ancient laws to rule or the recent ones. You can't just go about and pick which ever law suits your purposes.

Amen, paca. BTW, hope you are feeling better.

I didn't know that MC was so behind in gender equality. I guess that's something else we'll have to fix. This is probably for another thread, but I'm surprised that PA never mentioned gender equality in his speech last July. Is there no call for it in MC?

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Louis14

Since their advent on the throne of Monaco, Grimaldi never have exclude natural children from the inheritance order.
Legitimists militate for the application of this Fundamental Rule of succession which always made the originality of the Grimaldi dynasty of Monaco.
Our reasoning applies to all Grimaldi children concerned, Alexandre, Camille,Jazmin (if it was proven that she was Prince Albert's daughter).
In addition, Monaco in its membership of the EU, cannot be unaware of the will of the EU to promote total equality between men and women, and between all the children, whether they were born or not from the wedding union.
France has changed his law, the other EU countries will not have another political choice only to follow the way traced by France.
Louis-le-14ème.

Wow, I'm away for a couple of days and posts heated up. Calm down, it's just an exchange of ideas and theories.

On Monaco's who gets what and when, I just rely on the Will of Prince Rainier. He obviously had a crystal ball to predict the future...or just followed the patterns of human nature to take a wild guess he needed to act promptly to clarify the succesion rules. That man was a genius!

On the rest of your messages, I think our fellow members have done a formidable job to get their point across on this idea of legitimist's standards vs the real world. I don't need to add more.

Originally Posted by BurberryBrit

I also agree that it doesn't have much to do with Alex being half black as much as NC being his mother. I would say Nicole is 85% of the problem and Alex's race is 15%.

Exactly! Had it been Halley Berry, Angela Basset or even someone like Princess Angela of Liechtenstein, then the mother of Albert's child would have been more accepted by the media and public. Nicole's lifestyle (maybe too much in the lines of Stephanie's) is too difficult to accept for people who still have fond memories of the legendary Princess Grace as the grande dame of Monaco. Every woman who dares to enter the family circle will have her to measure up against.

[BurberryBrit]

And Toledo, the more I learn about Monaco, if any royal family was to have a mixed race royal family, I think it would be them. They seem to be very open minded and I have a lot of respect for that. Like some of the women you mentioned, it is obvious that having class has nothing to do with the race of a person. I simply think PA gravitates to a certain kind of women over and over again.

At first I strongly believed Alex's race was the reason he was being brushed aside. But I believe more and more that the way in which NC came out really damaged his future.

[paca]

Originally Posted by pinklady1991

Amen, paca. BTW, hope you are feeling better.

I didn't know that MC was so behind in gender equality. I guess that's something else we'll have to fix. This is probably for another thread, but I'm surprised that PA never mentioned gender equality in his speech last July. Is there no call for it in MC?

Yes there is and he seems to be doing sth aout it without having it in his program. Anyways MC is in a lot of ways still stuck in the 50s. As far as I have been informed, being gay is still considered a crime here. So there is still a lot of catching up to do with the rest of the world.

[Louis14]

Originally Posted by Grace

I'm sorry but you have to check your sources: Charlotte, Rainier's mother, being a natural child, was excluded from succession and her father had to adopt her in order to make her his legitimate heir. If she had been in line already, her father wouldn't have felt the need to adopt her but would have just recognized her.

As many said, Monaco is not member of EU, but it is member of the Council of Europe, the instituion that stresses more the respect of human rights, so the issue of men/women equality its bound to come up (but the same can be said for the majority of the other monarchies in Europe; I still think it is more important that women achieve equality in Parliament rapresentation than on throne that nowadays have very little political relevance!)...

kisses

The Fundamental Rule of succession of 1454 has never exclude women from the inheritance order.

Legitimists are not Republicans, that's why we do not wish to speak about the French Republican Institutions. We are against 1789.

Anyway, we believe that women will achieve total equality in the French Parliament, in few years.

Louis-le-14ème

[Grace]

[quote=Louis14].

The Fundamental Rule of succession of 1454 has never exclude women from the inheritance order

Yes but males have precedence over females: Caroline is older than Albert and last time I checked Albert was on the throne...

Legitimists are not Republicans, that's why we do not wish to speak about the French Republican Institutions. We are against 1789.

Yes, and I understand (more or less) that. But in Monaco the reforme was made by a legitimate sovereign, so why don't you accept it? In your eyes a reform made by a legitimete sovereign Prince should have much more value than any French, European or international law, yet to support your thesis you invoke French Republican laws versus a law that Prince Rainier promoted and approved.
Plus, you haven't answered about Princess Charlotte: if natural children always were in line of succession, why did her father adopt her?

Kisses

BTW, has anyone here seen "the Swan" with Grace Kelly? Best line ever...between an Emperess and her cousin, a princess who had been ousted during the Napoleonic wars: "I'll lend you a book of mine cousin, it's very consolatory, it proves that Napoleon never existed!" I think it fits our little debate...

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by acid_rain3075

Yes I think he might want that! I think thats the problem! This will was made in 1454, times have changed! And not mention that new laws have been put into place! And of course there is constitution now! Countries are not usually run by the say of some one from 6 centuries ago, but by their current rulers (and those of the recent past!)

Even if this law was valid still today, as a trained lawyer I assume that it's still open up to interpretation of what the Lord John back then actually wanted.

As in these times it was normal to bring up both legitimate and illegitimate children together in the father's household on the same terms, I guess it could be argued that Lord John Grimaldi wanted the first male child by the ruler who was brought up as such to become the next ruler. According to the customs of these times it was normal that a man was married very early and, as soon as he and his bride were mature enough, went on to produce offspring. While his acknowledging an illegitimate child by raising the kid as his own was much later in life. Before that his father took care of any offspring, so it was not considered "his". Or it was neglected - it was hard times then.

So if the Grimaldis are traditionalists and still want to follow these ancient rules, they can of course see if there is a chance that Albert might bring up the boy himself (which is not really realistic) or, if he finds that the young man as an adult turns out to be everything Albert (and the rest of the family)wished for, then there is always the possibility to revise the law and include the adoption of a child of your own blood as a way to legitimize it.

At the moment, IMHO, there is no reason why the princely family should do anything about the status of the boy who appears to be not much more than the hostage in the hand of an "interested mother". If that changes, I'm convinced the people of Monaco will gladly support their princely family in reestablishing traditions.

Apart form the thorn, the boy will surely inherit enough money to live happily ever after (well, to live without financial worries). Even if Monaco adheres to Fideikommis-Rules, then there should be quite some private wealth - after all, Grace Kelly had been a rich heiress in her own right as daughter of an American millionaire.

[Warren]

Let me get this straight... A French Royal Legitimist is advocating French Republican laws to overturn a Ruling Prince's Constitution in regard to succession to the throne so that a clause in a medieval will made 550 years ago forms the basis of succession rights in 2006. Have I got that right?

If if we wish to argue full equality of the sexes in regard to succession, and make it retrospective (as a true Legitimist would), then Princess Antoinette is the rightful Reigning Princess of Monaco as she was born (1920) before Prince Rainier (1923). In this scenario the argument over Alexandre is irrelevant because the true Hereditary Princess of Monaco is (Baroness) Elizabeth de Massy.

Albert and Hanovers, Casiraghis and Costas: usurpers out!

[Juliet]

Originally Posted by paca

It is very recent that a Monegasque woman can pass her citizenship to her children, when her usband is not monegasque.

How recent? I was under the impression that that was still the case actally.

[Danielane]

Originally Posted by Warren

Let me get this straight... A French Royal Legitimist is advocating French Republican laws to overturn a Ruling Prince's Constitution in regard to succession to the throne so that a clause in a medieval will made 550 years ago forms the basis of succession rights in 2006. Have I got that right?

Considering that in the same time they're claiming they are against the french republic institutions and against 1789 (I love this very quote: how can we be against something who already happened?), they are not very logic.

[paca]

Originally Posted by Juliet

How recent? I was under the impression that that was still the case actally.

I think the law was voted 2 years ago, but I wouldn't swear on it. It was definetely initiated by PR as put into action while he was still alive. But there is still a lot of work to be done. BTW children who were born before, have now the right to claim their citizenship and have the same benefits (which are tremendous when you live in MC) as those born to a Monegasque father.

[acid_rain3075]

Originally Posted by paca

I think the law was voted 2 years ago, but I wouldn't swear on it. It was definetely initiated by PR as put into action while he was still alive. But there is still a lot of work to be done. BTW children who were born before, have now the right to claim their citizenship and have the same benefits (which are tremendous when you live in MC) as those born to a Monegasque father.

wait does that mean that the Casiraghis weren't thought of as being Monegasque when they were born or did that not apply to them?