The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 01-20-2019, 03:28 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'm not aware of any issues with the interpretation of Article 42 of the Nassau family pact as it applied to Grand Duke Guillaume IV's daughters. It stipulated that upon the extinction of the male heirs in the house of Nassau, the oldest daughter of the last male, assuming he had daughters (otherwise, the closest female in the Nassau family) would succeed him.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/nassau.htm#42

Article 42 also stated that new succession laws should then be created to decide who should succeed the female heir, as the Nassau family pact did not address this. Under the original laws of the family pact, female-line descendants could not be heirs; if the last male's oldest daughter predeceased him, his next oldest daughter (rather than his oldest daughter's children) would inherit. This was dealt with by the 1907 law.
That's exactly what I referred to regarding the Nassau pact not being clear. Which is why the 1907 law was needed to provide further interpretation.

Quote:
The 1907 law allowed all of Grand Duke Guillaume IV's legitimate descendants (excluding those descended from marriages unrecognized under the house rules) to be in the line of succession. It also changed the order of succession by stating that if any of his daughters predeceased her father, her descendants took precedence over her sisters and their descendants. (That is why I believe the word "excluded" in the press release is misleading.)
You are free to disagree with the grand duke

The way I can bring together these different messages, is that in the case of a distinction a new line starts with the then closest heir in female line of the last male monarch. So, in that way, yes, they are excluded unless called upon to succeed (which could be done if they were in dynastic marriages).

(…)

It is also worth considering the possibility that some of the princesses did not ask the grand duke for his consent to their marriages, which would have excluded their descendants from the line of succession.[/QUOTE]
I don't see why a princess would need to ask permission to marry if they were already excluded from the line of succession. Imo you cannot be both excluded (which means no permission is necessary) and not excluded (which would mean permission is required). As long as they married into other royal houses they were fine, I'd say.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-20-2019, 04:03 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
My interpretation is that only the male-line descendants were to be included, so if eldest daughter had no male line descendants, the second daughter and her male-line descendants would constitute the new 'line' of succession. If there were no male-line descendants, it would pass to daughter number 3 and her male-line descendants and NOT to her daughters.
[...]
Had Charles' marriage for example not been declared dynastic (or had he two daughters instead of a daughter and a son, succession rights would have passed to prince Heinrich of Bavaria (had his marriage been declared dynastic) at the time of Jean's abdication (as by that time his aunt Hilda and mother Antonia were no longer alive).
I interpret it differently due to the parts boldfaced in message #76. The mention that the crown would pass to Marie-Adelheid and "first" (instead of "only") her male line, read together with the stipulation that it would pass to her sisters and their lines if she died without "descendants" (instead of "male-line descendants"), reads to me as giving precedence to Marie-Adelheid's daughters over her sisters' sons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So, if Jean had only had daughters and no sons, his younger brother Charles and his male-line descendants would have been next - at least according to the rules; [...]
I concur, as they would all be male-line descendants of the same daughter of Guillaume IV.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
You are free to disagree with the grand duke

The way I can bring together these different messages, is that in the case of a distinction a new line starts with the then closest heir in female line of the last male monarch. So, in that way, yes, they are excluded unless called upon to succeed (which could be done if they were in dynastic marriages).
I do see his technical point of view , but found it misleading to deem people who were clearly in the order of succession, however many other lines were ahead of them, as "excluded".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I don't see why a princess would need to ask permission to marry if they were already excluded from the line of succession. Imo you cannot be both excluded (which means no permission is necessary) and not excluded (which would mean permission is required). As long as they married into other royal houses they were fine, I'd say.
Regardless of the correctness of the term "excluded", what is clear is that princesses were entitled to inherit the throne and pass it to their descendants under certain circumstances. Permission would be necessary in the event that the princess wanted to retain her entitlement to inherit and pass on the throne, and if marrying without permission would strip it from her or her descendants.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-20-2019, 04:21 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 interpret it differently due to the parts boldfaced in message #76. The mention that the crown would pass to Marie-Adelheid and "first" (instead of "only") her male line, read together with the stipulation that it would pass to her sisters and their lines if she died without "descendants" (instead of "male-line descendants"), reads to me as giving precedence to Marie-Adelheid's daughters over her sisters' sons.
I noticed your bold parts as well. And read the second part as being a further specification of, so not, as an extension of a previous limitation. We'll never know what the correct interpretation would be...

Quote:
I concur, as they would all be male-line descendants of the same daughter of Guillaume IV.
The issue was about what would happen next

Quote:
I do see his technical point of view , but found it misleading to deem people who were clearly in the order of succession, however many other lines were ahead of them, as "excluded".

Regardless of the correctness of the term "excluded", what is clear is that princesses were entitled to inherit the throne under certain circumstances. Permission would be necessary in the event that the princess wanted to retain her entitlement to inherit the throne and if marrying without permission would strip it from her.
I also understand your reasoning but I don't think it should be approached that way. Male-line male descendants would for example never be passed by other males lower in line. Females (and their descendants) would, so, they are not truly in line but just in case the line would become extinct they were to be approached. And this distinction has direct impact on whether permission would be required. Those in line to the throne would need to ask permission, those who weren't would not. Only, in the occasion of a potential accession to the throne it would be judged whether their marriage did meet the requirement of being (off-spring of) dynastic marriages.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-20-2019, 04:22 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,700
Does anyone have the exact wording of the "Familienstatuten Unseres Hauses geschlossener Ehe" (in 1907 and later)?
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-20-2019, 04:34 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 also understand your reasoning but I don't think it should be approached that way. Male-line male descendants would for example never be passed by other males lower in line. Females (and their descendants) would, so, they are not truly in line but just in case the line would become extinct they were to be approached.
Unfortunately, I didn't understand what you meant here. Would you mind clarifying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Does anyone have the exact wording of the "Familienstatuten Unseres Hauses geschlossener Ehe" (in 1907 and later)?
I would also be interested in seeing the "Familienstatuten" regarding marriages, but I suspect these rules formed part of the "private" house laws that have never been made public, as I have not found them in the public editions of the Nassau family pact or the 1907 law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
And this distinction has direct impact on whether permission would be required. Those in line to the throne would need to ask permission, those who weren't would not. Only, in the occasion of a potential accession to the throne it would be judged whether their marriage did meet the requirement of being (off-spring of) dynastic marriages.
However, I have not seen any rule stipulating that certain persons need to ask permission ahead of marriage while other persons' marriages would only be judged if they were expected to accede to the throne. (If a rule exists, please correct me.) It would be my assumption that either permission is required ahead of the marriage or it is not required at all.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-20-2019, 04:50 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Unfortunately, I didn't understand what you meant here. Would you mind clarifying?
I'll try. In the old situation (limiting the line to only Jean's descendants for this argument and going back to 2009, as to not have to deal with Amalia's birth and the changes) the line of succession was:
  1. Guillaume
  2. Felix
  3. Sebastien
  4. Guillaume
  5. Paul-Louis
  6. Leopold
  7. Jean
Most would argue that in that case 'Alexandra' would be the first in line of the women in the family (you positioned her as 9th in line in one of your previous posts; I assume you would consider Charlotte 10th in line; and Marie-Astrid probably 11th?). In practice, she would indeed be the 'heir' as long as either her father, or one of her brothers would be the last grand duke (and had no daughters of their own). If however, the last grand duke would be her uncle Guillaume or one of his sons, suddenly it would no longer be Alexandra but Charlotte that would be first in line of the women to inherit.

So, in that case, Alexandra would be passed by someone who at first was lower in the hypothetical line - all of this depending on whom the last grand duke was. In contrast, her brothers who are in the line of succession could never be overtaken by their cousins.

Quote:
I would also be interested in seeing the "Familienstatuten" regarding marriages, but I suspect these rules formed part of the "private" house laws that have never been made public, as I have not found them in the public editions of the Nassau family pact or the 1907 law.
Do we even no for sure that formal permission is required or is only a 'dynastic marriage' required (or for the grand duke to declare a marriage dynastic if it is not 'ebenbürtig')?
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-20-2019, 05:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,155


Thank you. Now I understand you were discussing the potential (under semi-Salic primogeniture) for important changes in the order of succession upon the accession of a new grand duke, and the possibility that some female and non-male-line heirs will be elevated to a higher position while others will be demoted to a lower position in the order of succession. (Under absolute primogeniture or the old British rules, the order changes with every new monarch as well, but every heir is elevated higher by one position.)

Even though the semi-Salic order of succession can change massively upon a new reign, the order for the time being is still clearly established (assuming the general rules were made clear through precedent or unpublished house laws). So, rather than saying there is no line of succession further than the male-line heirs, I would refer it as a line of succession which can change in time if, for example, the grand duke is succeeded by his brother.

Having said this, I don't have an opinion on how the term "in the line of succession" ought to be used, but I would prefer to use it in a consistent way. In most discussions of hereditary succession, the term seems to include everyone who is currently entitled to inherit according to the order at that point in time, even if their position in the order of succession can or will change in time or even be lost (for example, see discussions of the lines of succession to the dukedoms of Cambridge or Edinburgh). Different usage can add to confusion, as many people incorrectly believe that Princess Alexandra, Princess Marie-Astrid, etc. had no right to inherit the throne until the law was changed to absolute primogeniture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Do we even no for sure that formal permission is required or is only a 'dynastic marriage' required (or for the grand duke to declare a marriage dynastic if it is not 'ebenbürtig')?
The 2012 edition of the 1907 law (link in message #79) says that formal permission is required in order to pass on royal titles and membership of the house. It is unclear as far as succession is concerned.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I noticed your bold parts as well. And read the second part as being a further specification of, so not, as an extension of a previous limitation. We'll never know what the correct interpretation would be...


The issue was about what would happen next



I also understand your reasoning but I don't think it should be approached that way. Male-line male descendants would for example never be passed by other males lower in line. Females (and their descendants) would, so, they are not truly in line but just in case the line would become extinct they were to be approached. And this distinction has direct impact on whether permission would be required. Those in line to the throne would need to ask permission, those who weren't would not. Only, in the occasion of a potential accession to the throne it would be judged whether their marriage did meet the requirement of being (off-spring of) dynastic marriages.



Could you please point me to the specific clause in the Family Pact or elsewhere which says that marriages without the consent of the Head of the Grand Ducal House lead to loss of succession rights ?
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Could you please point me to the specific clause in the Family Pact or elsewhere which says that marriages without the consent of the Head of the Grand Ducal House lead to loss of succession rights ?
My apologies. I made a mistake in the post which Somebody was answering and have corrected it.

Practically nothing relating to the Luxembourg succession rules is clear, but I believe marriage without the consent of the head of the house excludes only the descendants from the marriage, not the prince or princess who married without consent. Prince Louis and his uncle Prince Jean married without the consent of the Grand Duke (this can be observed from their wives not becoming princesses upon marriage, though Louis's wife was created a princess at a later time), but it was considered necessary for them to give up their own positions in the succession. The brother of Grand Duke Adolphe, Prince Nicolas of Nassau, retained his right of succession but his children, the Merenbergs, were excluded.

As for the specific clause concerning marriage and succession rights, I assume it is part of the private house laws or unwritten precedent, as I have been unable to find it.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-20-2019, 09:37 PM
ashelen's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: maidstone, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,986
So if the Grand Duke Guillaume & Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie don't have kids who will be the heir?
__________________
Ashelen
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-20-2019, 10:01 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashelen View Post
So if the Grand Duke Guillaume & Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie don't have kids who will be the heir?
Natural line of succession. Felix is the next in line after his brother, and then his children Amalia and Liam.

Its just the same as if Charles never had children. Andrew and his daughters would have been next.

As it stands when Guillaume is GD, if he has no kids, the line of succession would be :

1. Felix
2 Amalia
3 Liam
4 Alexandra
5 Sebastian

Followed by Henri's brother Guillaume and his sons, and then Henri's cousin Robert (son of Jean's brother Charles) and his two sons.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-20-2019, 10:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
[...] 5 Sebastian

Followed by Henri's brother Guillaume and his sons,
That is also my theory, but as the grand-ducal court has not given its interpretation of Article 24 of the family pact, an alternative interpretation is that Sébastien would be followed by Marie-Astrid (and a third interpretation is that after 2011 no one follows Sébastien).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
and then Henri's cousin Robert (son of Jean's brother Charles) and his two sons.
Robert's children are in all probability not in the line of succession, given that he apparently married without the consent of the grand duke.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:55 AM
ashelen's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: maidstone, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Natural line of succession. Felix is the next in line after his brother, and then his children Amalia and Liam.

Its just the same as if Charles never had children. Andrew and his daughters would have been next.

As it stands when Guillaume is GD, if he has no kids, the line of succession would be :

1. Felix
2 Amalia
3 Liam
4 Alexandra
5 Sebastian

Followed by Henri's brother Guillaume and his sons, and then Henri's cousin Robert (son of Jean's brother Charles) and his two sons.
Thank you for the explanation. I really hope Grand Duke Guillaume & Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie have kids in the near future, but considering how many years they had been married and that she does not get any younger and with all the new advance medicine with IVF etc.....they still with no kids I see it difficult, I hope I am very wrong .They would have such a beautiful kids! she is so pretty......
__________________

__________________
Ashelen
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
Monaco's succession issues Julia Princely Family of Monaco 644 11-07-2017 11:32 AM
Titles, Names, Succession & Precedence after King Felipe's Accession dazzling Royal Family of Spain 49 06-24-2014 11:20 AM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM
Members of the Royal Family and Line of Succession - Broadest Sense hrhcp Royal House of Denmark 85 07-11-2012 11:20 PM




Popular Tags
"chinese gordon" bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig bonaparte british royal family britishroyals camilla ceremony charles christian ix clothes corruption countess of wessex current events daughter documentary duchess of sussex duke of sussex duke of york dutch royal family extramarital affairs fashion felipe and letizia friendly city genetics harry head of the house hohenzollern introduction juan carlos kate middleton king king felipe king felipe vi ladies-in-waiting meghan markle modernization northampton osborn patronages porphyria prince charles prince charles; biographies; tom bower prince harry prince harry of wales prince laurent prince of belgium princess anne prince william public opinion queen letizia quizz royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal ladies royal wedding sarah ferguson siblings soldier south africa state visit swedish royal registry the crown tiara titles uk styles viscount severn wedding windsor windsor castle windsor wedding



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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