Luxembourg Succession & Titles

[maria-olivia]

Few Nobiity in Luxembourg.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Thanks @Duc et Pair and @Countessmeout for the replies that help me understand the system in non King/Queen monarchies.
I have lots of books and reference links about royalty and nobility and none seem to mention the specifics on Monaco, Lichtenstein or Luxembourg in terms of if and how peer titles are granted.

There is no nobility in Liechtenstein apart from the Princely family who later on became sovereigns

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Question on titles on non King/Queen European monarchies:

Can the Grand Duke grant nobility titles, either lifetime or hereditary?

Yes, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is permitted to grant nobility. Article 40 of the Luxembourg constitution reads: "Le Grand-Duc a le droit de conférer des titres de noblesse, sans pouvoir jamais y attacher aucun privilège." ("The Grand Duke may confer titles of nobility, without ever having the power to attach privileges to them.")

And even if we are here in the Grand Ducal thread, can I ask the same question about the Princes of Monaco and Lichtenstein?

There is no nobility in Liechtenstein apart from the Princely family who later on became sovereigns

The Princes of Liechtenstein may also grant nobility but haven't done so since 1979.

https://fuerstenhaus.li/en/the-monarchy/decorations/

"As Head of State, the Prince can confer titles. [...] Noble titles with the predicate "von" as well as the titles "Baron" and "Count" are very rarely awarded. The last time such a title was awarded was in 1979."​

In today's age, the difference of title between the monarchs of Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and Monaco versus the other European monarchs is than a relict of history. In actuality, all are heads of sovereign states, as are the presidents of France or Germany.

For future reference, the Non-British Styles and Titles thread is available for title questions and discussion relating to multiple countries.

This changed in 1892 thanks to his uncle. Oscar's mother Sophia was a daughter of Wilhelm of Nassau, and sister of Adolph, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.Adolphe exercised his right to create hereditary peers and granted Prince Bernadotte as a hereditay peerage in Luxembourg. He was also given the title of Count of Wisborg.

Grand Dule Adophe only gave the title Count and Countess of Wisborg to Prince Oscar and his wife and descendants.

"D'admettre dans la Noblesse de Notre Grand-Duché de Luxembourg ledit Notre cher neveu Oscar-Charles-Auguste Prince Bernadotte, ainsi que la Princesse Ebba-Henriette Bernadotte, et leurs descendants des deux sexes, nés et à naître de mariage légitime, et de leur conférer en outre le titre de Comte et Comtesse de Wisborg, qui sera porté par tous leurs descendants légitimes, conformément aux lettres patentes qui leur seront délivrées."​

https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/agd/1892/04/02/n1

 

[Toledo]

Thanks everyone for all the information on my question above! And even when the links are in other languages my browser auto translates them. I remember when I was in the old version of the Forum, with username El Cid, there was no such thing as automatic translation on anything.

The information is an eye opener on these three small countries, like I always assumed in Luxemburg the children of the monarch started using the predicate prince(ss) after the marriage into the Bourbon-Parma cadet family. Now I see it's all into legal documents, same with the usage of Royal Highness over Grand Ducal Highness.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Some initial thoughts on the major constitutional reform that just entered into force on July 1, 2023:


1) Clearly, the most momentous change for the monarchy is that the rules of succession, abdication, deposal and regency in relation to the Crown are now embedded in the Constitution itself (articles 56-61), instead of leaving these matters to the Nassau family's house rules.


2) The transitional provision (article 132) is ambiguous, in my opinion, about whether the line of succession to the throne is restricted to Grand Duke Henri's descendants or only begins with Grand Duke Henri's descendants.

But either way, what has now been made clear is that the old semi-Salic succession law giving preference to the male line is no longer applicable to any part of the line of succession. Either there is no one in line to the throne after Prince Sébastien, or else Prince Sébastien is followed by his aunt Princess Marie-Astrid (not his uncle Prince Guillaume).


3) Very surprisingly, in contrast to the other hereditary monarchies of Europe, there is no rule to exclude descendants from an unapproved marriage. Since the new Constitution supersedes the house laws, this presumably means descendants of unapproved marriages are no longer barred from the throne.

However, there is a new requirement that successors must be born from a marriage. (Otherwise, the Civil Code regulation that a child born out of wedlock whose parents marry subsequently becomes legitimate would apply.)

In addition, there is another new rule stating that renunciations affect only the individual making the renunciation.

So although Grand Duke Henri's third son Prince Louis did not obtain his father's formal permission for his marriage in 2006 (which, under the Nassau house rules, would have eliminated the descendants of that marriage from the line of succession even if Louis had not renounced his own rights), and he renounced his and his descendants' right to the throne in 2006, his younger son Prince Noah is now in line to the throne under the new rules. His older son Prince Gabriel, who was born out of wedlock, is legitimate according to the Civil Code, but the new rule requiring birth in wedlock means he remains incapable of succeeding to the throne.


4) I am also surprised at the new requirement that the regent must be appointed from amongst the people in the line of succession to the crown. There is a tradition of monarchs' wives and widows serving as regent in Luxembourg and other European monarchies, and wouldn't Grand Duchess Maria Teresa or Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie be much better prepared to serve as regent than Prince Félix or Princess Alexandra, who have almost no experience as working royals?


The new and older versions of the Constitution can be found on Legilux.

 

[JR76]

Some initial thoughts on the major constitutional reform that just entered into force on July 1, 2023:

Thank you for your summary and thoughts. It seems a bit curious to me that the new constitution has removed any way of limiting the size of the Royal house that was available in the Nassau House Law and thereby goes against the trend we see in most other monarchies of Europe.

4) I am also surprised at the new requirement that the regent must be appointed from amongst the people in the line of succession to the crown. There is a tradition of monarchs' wives and widows serving as regent in Luxembourg and other European monarchies, and wouldn't Grand Duchess Maria Teresa or Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie be much better prepared to serve as regent than Prince Félix or Princess Alexandra, who have almost no experience as working royals?

Although Princess Stephanie seems to be quite popular in Luxembourg the much publicised antics of her mother-in-law may have something to do with the authorities wanting to limit the influence of a mother or wife of the monarch.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

You read my very thoughts. The new stipulation re: regents was made with GD Maria Teresa in mind.

 

[Stefan]

Thanks. Surprising with the marriage rule, because there is no need to ask for permission to the marriage, if children of not approved marriages ar also in the line of succession.

I also think that the regency ruile has something to do with Maria Teresa, but chances that she would become Regent are slim anyway, as Guillaume is well over 18. They only way she would have become Regent would be if there would be something with Henri, but i wonder if then not the Heir would be chosen as Regent given that he is adult

 

[Somebody]

Some initial thoughts on the major constitutional reform that just entered into force on July 1, 2023:


1) Clearly, the most momentous change for the monarchy is that the rules of succession, abdication, deposal and regency in relation to the Crown are now embedded in the Constitution itself (articles 59-61), instead of leaving these matters to the Nassau family's house rules.

I assume you mean 56 to 61. Article 56 seems key and refers to Grand Duke Adolphe as point of reference for those who are eligible for various positions (Grand Duke or his representative: either a Regent or Lieutenant-Representative).

(1)The office of Head of State is hereditary in the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, in order of primogeniture and representation. Only children born of a marriage have the right to succeed.

(2)The person entitled to succeed may renounce it. This waiver takes the form of a written act which is irrevocable and whose effects apply only to the author.

When exceptional circumstances so require, the Chamber of Deputies may exclude one or more persons from the order of succession by a law adopted by a qualified majority.

(3) In the absence of a successor, the Chamber of Deputies shall meet no later than thirty days of the death or abdication of the Grand Duke with a view to appointing a new Head of State. The decision shall be adopted by qualified majority.

(4) The abdication of the Grand Duke requires the form of a written act which is irrevocable.

2) The transitional provision (article 132) is ambiguous, in my opinion, about whether the line of succession to the throne is restricted to Grand Duke Henri's descendants or only begins with Grand Duke Henri's descendants.

But either way, what has now been made clear is that the old semi-Salic succession law giving preference to the male line is no longer applicable to any part of the line of succession. Either there is no one in line to the throne after Prince Sébastien, or else Prince Sébastien is followed by his aunt Princess Marie-Astrid (not his uncle Prince Guillaume).

The transitional provision (in italics below) indeed makes its interpretation a bit complicated.

The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.


I am not sure that the only interpretations are either only Henri's descendants are in line or also all females are in line. An alternative explanation might be that the old remains continue to apply for other descendants, but these rules apply to Henri's descendants. This would be consistent with the previous decision to start applying equal primogeniture to his descendants only.[/quote]

3) Very surprisingly, in contrast to the other hereditary monarchies of Europe, there is no rule to exclude descendants from an unapproved marriage. Since the new Constitution supersedes the house laws, this presumably means descendants of unapproved marriages are no longer barred from the throne.

However, there is a new requirement that successors must be born from a marriage. (Otherwise, the Civil Code regulation that a child born out of wedlock whose parents marry subsequently becomes legitimate would apply.)

In addition, there is another new rule stating that renunciations affect only the individual making the renunciation.

So although Grand Duke Henri's third son Prince Louis did not obtain his father's formal permission for his marriage in 2006 (which, under the Nassau house rules, would have eliminated the descendants of that marriage from the line of succession even if Louis had not renounced his own rights), and he renounced his and his descendants' right to the throne in 2006, his younger son Prince Noah is now in line to the throne under the new rules. His older son Prince Gabriel, who was born out of wedlock, is legitimate according to the Civil Code, but the new rule requiring birth in wedlock means he remains incapable of succeeding to the throne.

I wonder whether this is indeed what is meant. I'd say that if someone is no longer in the line of succession, automatically any off-spring wouldn't be either, but it seems that indeed according to these rules everyone who descents from grand duke Henri (or Adolphe; but in his case probably only male-line) is in line to the throne unless they personally gave up their rights in writing.

It doesn't seem very well thought out. They might have been worried by the long time it took before Guillaume and Stéphanie's children were born and therefore would rather err on the side of caution but even if for now, the old rules still apply to Adolphe's descendants and the new rules to Henri, within a vew generationts the numbers could be enormous; because, if we only go one generation back and all of them would have been included the line of succession would be enormous.

4) I am also surprised at the new requirement that the regent must be appointed from amongst the people in the line of succession to the crown. There is a tradition of monarchs' wives and widows serving as regent in Luxembourg and other European monarchies, and wouldn't Grand Duchess Maria Teresa or Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie be much better prepared to serve as regent than Prince Félix or Princess Alexandra, who have almost no experience as working royals?

I agree with the others that Maria Teresa would definitely NOT be the better choice to serve as regent. Personally, I am fine with limiting the role of representing the grand duke (either as regent or lieutenant-representative to those in line to the throne) given that the position of grand duke itself is also limited to that group of people.

The new and older versions of the Constitution can be found on Legilux.

Thanks!

It doesn't seem very well thought out. They might have been worried by the long time it took before Guillaume and Stéphanie's children were born and therefore would rather err on the side of caution but even if for now, the old rules still apply to Adolphe's descendants and the new rules to Henri, within a few generations the numbers could be enormous; because, if we only go one generation back and all of them would have been included the line of succession would be enormous.

Following up on the above. The line of succession would be rather long including all Jean's descendants (and even longer if we also include all his sisters' descendants. But let's take a look at the first (for this case assuming that Marie-Astrid would be the Grand Duchess):

GD: Marie-Astrid (with Prince Consort: Carl-Christian)

1. Archduchess Marie-Christine of Austria (b. 31 July 1983)
2. Count Léopold de Limburg-Stirum (b. 19 April 2011).
3. Count Constantin de Limburg-Stirum (b. 25 October 2013
4. Count Gabriel de Limburg-Stirum (b. 2016).
5. Archduke Imre of Austria (b. 8 December 1985)
6. Archduchess Maria-Stella of Austria (b. 11 November 2013)
7. Archduchess Magdalena of Austria (b. 24 February 2016)
8. Archduchess Juliana of Austria (b. 14 October 2018)
9. Archduchess Cecilia of Austria (b. 15 January 2021)
10. Archduke Karl of Austria (b. 4 June 2023)
11. Archduke Christoph of Austria (b. 2 February 1988)
12. Archduchess Katarina of Austria (b. 22 December 2014)
13. Archduchess Sophia of Austria (b. 31 August 2017)
14. Archduke Josef of Austria (b. October 2020)
15. Archduke Alexander of Austria (b. 26 September 1990)
16. Archduchess Gabriella of Austria (b. 26 March 1994)
    Princess Victoria of Bourbon-Parma (b. 30 October 2017)
17. Princess Anastasia of Bourbon-Parma (b. 3 July 2021)
18. GRAND DUKE/PRINCE HENRI OF LUXEMBOURG (B. 1955)
19. Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg (b. 1981)
20. Prince Charles of Luxembourg (b. 2020)
21. Prince Francois of Luxembourg (b. 2023)
22. Prince Felix of Luxembourg (b. 1984)
23. Princess Amalia of Nassau (b. 2014)
24. Prince Liam of Nassau (b. 2016)
    Prince Louis of Luxembourg (b. 1986)
    Prince Gabriel of Luxembourg (b. 2006)
25. Prince Noah of Luxembourg (b. 2007)
26. Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg (b. 1991)
27. Prince Sebastien of Luxembourg (b. 1992)
    Prince Jean of Luxembourg (b. 1957)
28. Princess Marie-Gabrielle of Nassau (b. 8 September 1986France)
29. Zeno Willms (b. 5 June 2018)
30. Cajetan Willms (b. 2 September 2020)
31. Prince Constantin of Nassau (b. 22 July 1988)
    Prince Félix of Nassau (b. 22 April 2018)
32. Princess Cosima of Nassau (b. 13 May 2022)
33. Prince Wenceslas d'Aviano of Nassau (b. 17 November 1990)
34. Prince Carl-Johan of Nassau (b. 15 August 1992).
35. Prince Xander of Nassau (b. 2021)
36. Prince(ss) N of Nassau (b. 2022)
37. Princess Margaretha of Luxembourg (1957)
38. Princess Maria-Anunciata of Liechtenstein (b. 12 May 1985)
39. Princess Marie-Astrid of Liechtenstein (b. 26 June 1987)
40. Althaea Worthington (b. 1 July 2022)
41. Prince Josef-Emanuel of Liechtenstein (b. 07 May 1989)
42. Prince Leopold of Liechtenstein (b. March 2023)
43. Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg (b. 1963)
44. Prince Paul-Louis of Nassau (b. 4 March 1998)
45. Prince Léopold of Nassau (b. 2 May 2000)
46. Princess Charlotte of Nassau (b. 2 May 2000)
    [*]Prince Jean of Nassau (b. 13 July 2004)

In bold those who were in line until Friday (note: also Henri's cousin prince Charles and his two sons were (and are?) in line to the throne).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In bold those who were in line until Friday (note: also Henri's cousin prince Charles and his two sons were (and are?) in line to the throne).

Just a clarification before I respond to the rest of your post (I appreciate your thoughts!): Daughters were always in line, even under the old rules.

The Nassau family pact as it was originally enacted in 1783 implemented semi-Salic, not Salic, succession. All males were ahead of all females in line to inherit, but the females were in line. If the Nassau male line became extinct, the last male head of house's oldest daughter (or his closest female relative in the house of Nassau, if he was childless) in the line of succession would automatically succeed him.

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

42. Da übrigens auch der Fall möglich ist, welchen jedoch der Allerhöchste gnädiglich abwenden wolle, dass Unser ganzer Nassauischer Mannsstamm erlöschen möchte, so lassen Wir es in Ansehung derer jeweilen existirenden Töchter, bey dem von solchen geleisteten, auch künftig und zu ewigen Tagen zu leistenden unbedingten Verzicht, ohne Vorbehalt einiger Regredienterbschaft bewenden, verbinden Uns, setzen, ordnen und wollen demnach, dass in solchem Falle eine Tochter und zwar, wann deren mehrere vorhanden, die Erstgeborne, oder in deren Mangel die nächste Erbin des letzten Mannsstammes, mit Ausschluss aller andern entfernterer, zur Succession berufen seyn solle, es wäre dann, dass Wir oder Unsere Nachkommen auf solchen Fall anders übereingekommen wären, oder sonstige Vorsehung gethan hätten, als welches zu thun Wir Ihnen und Uns hiermit ausdrücklich vorbehalten, fort Unsere und Unserer Nachkommen respective Töchter und Erben zur Festhaltung einer solchen Vorsehung Kraft dieses verbunden haben wollen.

 

[Somebody]

Just a clarification before I respond to the rest of your post (I appreciate your thoughts!): Daughters were always in line, even under the old rules.

The Nassau family pact as it was originally enacted in 1783 implemented semi-Salic, not Salic, succession. All males were ahead of all females in line to inherit, but the females were in line. If the Nassau male line became extinct, the last male head of house's oldest daughter (or his closest female relative in the house of Nassau, if he was childless) in the line of succession would automatically succeed him.

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

42. Da übrigens auch der Fall möglich ist, welchen jedoch der Allerhöchste gnädiglich abwenden wolle, dass Unser ganzer Nassauischer Mannsstamm erlöschen möchte, so lassen Wir es in Ansehung derer jeweilen existirenden Töchter, bey dem von solchen geleisteten, auch künftig und zu ewigen Tagen zu leistenden unbedingten Verzicht, ohne Vorbehalt einiger Regredienterbschaft bewenden, verbinden Uns, setzen, ordnen und wollen demnach, dass in solchem Falle eine Tochter und zwar, wann deren mehrere vorhanden, die Erstgeborne, oder in deren Mangel die nächste Erbin des letzten Mannsstammes, mit Ausschluss aller andern entfernterer, zur Succession berufen seyn solle, es wäre dann, dass Wir oder Unsere Nachkommen auf solchen Fall anders übereingekommen wären, oder sonstige Vorsehung gethan hätten, als welches zu thun Wir Ihnen und Uns hiermit ausdrücklich vorbehalten, fort Unsere und Unserer Nachkommen respective Töchter und Erben zur Festhaltung einer solchen Vorsehung Kraft dieses verbunden haben wollen.

You are completely right. They wouldn't have had three grand duchesses in a row had daughters not been allowed to inherit.

However, due to this specific form of semi-salic law in which first ALL male-line male descendants would need to be 'unavailable' before they would look into the women in the family, their positions in line to the throne were unstable in that depending on who the last grand duke was, their position among each other would change (unlike the males whose relative position would not change). For example, if no males were available under Jean his daughter Marie-Astrid would have been the first female in line, while under Henri it is his daughter Alexandra. And, if Henri would only have had daughters instead of sons, his brother Guillaume would have been his heir in during his hypothetical reign, his daughter Charlotte would have ended up as the first female in line to the throne.

 

[Prinsara]

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?

I realize the revision was done with more than one family in mind, but if Noah really has been reinstated, it seems like a bit of a shame, somehow.

 

[Somebody]

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?

I realize the revision was done with more than one family in mind, but if Noah really has been reinstated, it seems like a bit of a shame, somehow.

I would also consider that a mistake (and undesirable consequence of this new constitution). I see how someone cannot renounce for living descendants (for example, in Norway, if Märtha Louise would request to be removed from the line of succession, her daughters shouldn't be impacted), however, for future descendants, it would make more sense to me that once someone is no longer in line, any descendants born after that renunciation shouldn't be in line either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?

I am fairly certain that was just uninformed speculation by people who were unaware that Luxembourg's Civil Code (just like that of Monaco, which for some reason many more people seem to be aware of) legitimates children upon the subsequent marriage of their parents.

The old and new Nassau house laws (at least those which are published online) did not exclude children who were born out of wedlock and legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage, as far as I can tell. (Edited to correct: The original wording of the 1907 bylaw did require birth from a marriage in conformity with the house rules, but this wording was removed in the 2012 revision.)

According to Luxarazzi, the publicly given reason for Louis's renunciation was to make it easier to pursue his business career. He apparently followed the example of his uncle Jean, who also officially renounced the throne for the sake of his business career, coincidentally not long after having a child out of wedlock.

When Prince Jean renounced his rights he stated that he did so in order to make it easier to pursue his business career. He did not mention his daughter (who few knew about) or his eventual marriage to Helene. This is the same "excuse" that Prince Louis used when he did the same before his marriage to Princess Tessy. I'll leave it to you to decide if you feel if it is the real reason behind those actions.

 

[Mbruno]

I agree with the others that Maria Teresa would definitely NOT be the better choice to serve as regent. Personally, I am fine with limiting the role of representing the grand duke (either as regent or lieutenant-representative to those in line to the throne) given that the position of grand duke itself is also limited to that group of people.

I believe that, under previous rules, the role of lieutenant-representative was already restricted to blood relatives of the Grand Duke, so the novelty is really in the extension of that restriction to the regency.

Incidentally, the monarch's consort cannot serve as regent either in the United Kingdom under the Regency Act 1937. Exceptions like the Duke of Edinburgh, who became a possible regent while Prince Charles was underage, were made by special, separate legislation that applied only to him and not to future consorts. The consort may be appointed a counsellor of state though.

That contrasts, for example, with the constitutional position in Spain, where there is a long tradition, dating back to the constitutions of 1845 and 1876 and reaffirmed in the constitution of 1978, that the monarch's mother is the default regent for an underage monarch whose father, the former King, is deceased and, furthermore, that the queen consort is the default regent in case the reigning King is incapacitated and the heir to the throne, being her son or daughter, is under 18.

My understanding is that other kingdoms like the Netherlands deal with the issue of the regency by special legislation on a case-by-case basis, rather than having an enshrined constitutional rule of general application, which is probably wiser. Of course the UK, not having a written constitution and having the flexibility to change the regency law at any time, doesn't have to worry about the inflexibility of rules of general application such as those found in the Regency Act 1937.

In that sense, I am not sure that the "constitutionalization" of the regency rules in Luxembourg, permanently excluding the monarch's consort from that role, is a good move. GD Maria Teresa may have her flaws, but HGD Stéphanie for example would be more than qualified to serve as regent.

 

[tommy100]

Would it no be possible for a similar thing as happened in the UK to happen in Luxembourg and a specific act /legislation be created to make Stephanie regent if it was thought the best thing to do at the time? I haven't seen the exact wording of this new legislation so not sure.

I can imagine given MTs profile at the moment it would be hard to create any new rules that give a consort power / a formal role, even if in the long term that would be better once MT is no longer in that role. However, in one way I guess it does make sense that the rules for a Regent follow those of who can be lieutenant-representative. Having a difference between who acts formally on behalf of the Head of State as regent and who will actually care and look after an underage Grand Duke / Grand Duchess is maybe no bad thing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I also think that the regency ruile has something to do with Maria Teresa, but chances that she would become Regent are slim anyway, as Guillaume is well over 18. They only way she would have become Regent would be if there would be something with Henri, but i wonder if then not the Heir would be chosen as Regent given that he is adult

Before July 1, the Constitution stipulated that if the monarch were unable to govern, the same rules of regency would apply as if the monarch were a minor. It also stipulated that these rules would be according to the (Nassau) family pact.

Art. 6. Si à la mort du Grand-Duc Son successeur est mineur, la régence est exercée conformément au pacte de famille.

Art. 7. Si le Grand-Duc se trouve dans l’impossibilité de régner, il est pourvu à la régence comme dans le cas de minorité.​

The rule laid down by the Nassau family pact, since 2012 (but now overridden by the new Constitution), is that the monarch's surviving parent is their regent and their guardian.

Art. 32. In dem Falle, dass der Hauschef mit Hinterlassung unmündiger Kinder versterben sollte (Artikel 24 Absatz 1 Ziffer 2), so verbleibt es bei der Vormundschaft und Regentschaft des verbliebenen Elternteils und im Falle des Versterbens beider Elternteile bei der Vormundschaft und Regentschaft des nach der Sukzessionsordnung nächstverwandten Familienmitglieds.

https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/adm/dec/2012/06/11/n1/jo​

So without the recent constitutional reform, Grand Duchess Maria Teresa could have become regent not for her husband, but for her son Guillaume if he became Grand Duke and then became unable to carry out his constitutional duties.

I believe that, under previous rules, the role of lieutenant-representative was already restricted to blood relatives of the Grand Duke, so the novelty is really in the extension of that restriction to the regency.

Yes. The previous version of the Constitution restricted the role of Lieutenant of the Grand Duke to "princes of the blood".

Art. 42. Le Grand-Duc peut Se faire représenter par un Prince du sang, qui aura le titre de Lieutenant du Grand-Duc et résidera dans le Grand-Duché. [...]​

Having a difference between who acts formally on behalf of the Head of State as regent and who will actually care and look after an underage Grand Duke / Grand Duchess is maybe no bad thing.

The new constitution remains silent about the guardianship of an underage monarch, so I assume that will still be governed by the family pact (i.e., guardianship will fall to the monarch's surviving parent).

Would it no be possible for a similar thing as happened in the UK to happen in Luxembourg and a specific act /legislation be created to make Stephanie regent if it was thought the best thing to do at the time? I haven't seen the exact wording of this new legislation so not sure.

The new and older versions of the Constitution can be found on Legilux.

The Constitution cannot be preempted by an ordinary act of parliament. Amending the Constitution would require at least one two-thirds supermajority vote of Parliament, and in some cases a referendum (see article 131).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Article 56

(1)The office of Head of State is hereditary in the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, in order of primogeniture and representation. Only children born of a marriage have the right to succeed.

(2)The person entitled to succeed may renounce it. This waiver takes the form of a written act which is irrevocable and whose effects apply only to the author.

When exceptional circumstances so require, the Chamber of Deputies may exclude one or more persons from the order of succession by a law adopted by a qualified majority.

(3) In the absence of a successor, the Chamber of Deputies shall meet no later than thirty days of the death or abdication of the Grand Duke with a view to appointing a new Head of State. The decision shall be adopted by qualified majority.

(4) The abdication of the Grand Duke requires the form of a written act which is irrevocable.


Article 132

The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.

An alternative explanation might be that the old remains continue to apply for other descendants, but these rules apply to Henri's descendants.

I wonder if that may have been the intent of the legislators, but if so, I would say their intent was not effected.

Nothing in the new Constitution refers to semi-Salic/male-preference succession, or to older succession rules in general, even in the transitional provision (article 132).

So, what legal instrument could provide a basis for applying semi-Salic male-preference rules to favor (for example) Henri's brother Guillaume over his sister Marie-Astrid?

This would be consistent with the previous decision to start applying equal primogeniture to his descendants only.

We don't know whether Grand Duke Henri's decisions in 2010-11 were intended to apply equal primogeniture to his descendants only, or to apply equal primogeniture to the entire line of succession (with the exception of his line remaining ahead of his older sister Marie-Astrid, naturally). The grand-ducal court refused to clarify Henri's intent when Luxarazzi made inquiries. (A note to readers: the linked Luxarazzi post mistakenly implies the line of succession used to be male-only, which was not true, as discussed above.)

I assume you mean 56 to 61.

I did, thank you! It has now been corrected.

In bold those who were in line until Friday (note: also Henri's cousin prince Charles and his two sons were (and are?) in line to the throne).

Did you mean Grand Duke Henri's cousin Prince Robert? Robert married without the consent of then Grand Duke Jean, which is evident because Robert's wife and children did not become Princesses and Princes until Henri elevated them in 2004. Therefore, according to the old house rules, his children were morganatic and were not in line to inherit.

Thank you for your summary and thoughts. It seems a bit curious to me that the new constitution has removed any way of limiting the size of the Royal house that was available in the Nassau House Law and thereby goes against the trend we see in most other monarchies of Europe.

You're very welcome and I fully agree. It harkens back to an old-fashioned outlook of the throne as a hereditary right which should not be denied outside of "exceptional circumstances", as it says in the new article 56 (2). This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the breakdown in trust between the grand-ducal couple and the government meant legislators no longer trusted Grand Duke Henri to make decisions (about marriage approvals and renunciations) impacting the line of succession.

 

[Prinsara]

Has there been any reissued Line of Succession to know who was and was not affected?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Has there been any reissued Line of Succession to know who was and was not affected?

What do you mean by "who was and was not affected"?

 

[Prinsara]

What do you mean by "who was and was not affected"?

Noah, who would seem to now be in line, for one. Anyone else who was not in line and now is. Anyone who had their place changed. I assume there is no one who was removed.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Noah, who would seem to now be in line, for one. Anyone else who was not in line and now is. Anyone who had their place changed. I assume there is no one who was removed.

If the line of succession to the throne has been reduced to Grand Duke Henri's descendants, which is one plausible reading of Article 132 (see the translation above), then quite a few people have been removed.

But no, the grand-ducal court website does not list the line of succession and has not been updated to reflect last week's constitutional reforms impacting succession, regency, finances, etc.

 

[Fence Sitter]

There seems to be some confusion as to why first the 2012 amendment to the Nassau family pact and now Article 132 state that the change (to equal primogeniture) first applies to the descendants of GD Henri.


In my opinion the reason is simple. Both according to the family pact then and according to the constitution now the throne belongs to the descendants of GD Adolphe. So it was absolutely necessary, by one means or another, to make clear that the new rules have no retroactive effect, and the abdication of Jean I in favour of his eldest son (instead of his eldest child / eldest daughter) still remains legal without any doubt.


Article 132 states that Article 56 "shall for the first time apply" to the descendants of GD Henri. Now some people seem to assume that this "shall for the first time apply" means that for others in the line of succession, the old semi-salic law would still apply. That would be illogical, in my opinion. It would mean, that a new constitution would cease to apply in favour of an old, already obsolete family pact, not because the constitution says so, but because the "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau. " in Article 132 is interpreted to mean "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, and after the extinction of that line, not apply at all".



Article 132 states: "shall for the first time apply". It would have been easy to formulate the article "The provisions of Article 56 shall only apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau", had that really been the intended effect.


This still leaves one important question unanswered, however. Should Article 132 be understood so that the line of Marie-Astrid was sidelined for all time to come as a result of Henri's accession, or is she together with her descendants now in line after Henri's children and grandchildren? The Nassau family pact applied to people who were considered part of the house of Nassau, so not necessary a princess who due to her marriage had become a memer of the Imperial house of Austria, if the old logic from the times of Holy Roman empire is followed. But that line of argument is now obsolete as well, since the new constitution doesn't limit the succession rights to the "House of Nassau" but to the descendants of GD Adolphe.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?

I am fairly certain that was just uninformed speculation by people who were unaware that Luxembourg's Civil Code (just like that of Monaco, which for some reason many more people seem to be aware of) legitimates children upon the subsequent marriage of their parents.

The old and new Nassau house laws (at least those which are published online) did not exclude children who were born out of wedlock and legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage, as far as I can tell. (Edited to correct: The original wording of the 1907 bylaw did require birth from a marriage in conformity with the house rules, but this wording was removed in the 2012 revision.)

According to Luxarazzi, the publicly given reason for Louis's renunciation was to make it easier to pursue his business career. He apparently followed the example of his uncle Jean, who also officially renounced the throne for the sake of his business career, coincidentally not long after having a child out of wedlock.

To add to this post: The popular claim that Prince Louis renounced the succession rights of his descendants also appears to be false. According to Luxarazzi, the text of his renunciation was never published, but news and forum posts dating from 2006 refer only to Louis renouncing his own rights.

The claim that he also renounced for his descendants seems to be a later invention. I imagine it resulted from foreign royal watchers being ignorant of the fact that Louis marrying without the formal consent of Grand Duke Henri automatically made his marriage morganatic under the House Laws, so that his children had no rights to the throne to be renounced (given that the succession to the throne was governed by the House Laws at the time).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There seems to be some confusion as to why first the 2012 amendment to the Nassau family pact and now Article 132 state that the change (to equal primogeniture) first applies to the descendants of GD Henri.


In my opinion the reason is simple. Both according to the family pact then and according to the constitution now the throne belongs to the descendants of GD Adolphe. So it was absolutely necessary, by one means or another, to make clear that the new rules have no retroactive effect, and the abdication of Jean I in favour of his eldest son (instead of his eldest child / eldest daughter) still remains legal without any doubt.


Article 132 states that Article 56 "shall for the first time apply" to the descendants of GD Henri. Now some people seem to assume that this "shall for the first time apply" means that for others in the line of succession, the old semi-salic law would still apply. That would be illogical, in my opinion. It would mean, that a new constitution would cease to apply in favour of an old, already obsolete family pact, not because the constitution says so, but because the "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau. " in Article 132 is interpreted to mean "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, and after the extinction of that line, not apply at all".



Article 132 states: "shall for the first time apply". It would have been easy to formulate the article "The provisions of Article 56 shall only apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau", had that really been the intended effect.

Well said, and I agree with you completely. My question to the many people who claim that male-preference or even male-only succession applies to family members not descended from Grand Duke Henri is: Where is that written in law? Since 2023, neither the Constitution nor the Family Pact contain even a single mention of male-preference (or male-only) succession.


Fence Sitter, you are also right on the lawmakers' intentions for the "shall for the first time apply" clause. According to the preparatory work for the 2023 constitutional reform, the "for the first time" transitory provision is simply meant to ensure that the rules of succession will not apply retroactively (if they were, Henri would be retroactively dethroned in favor of his older sister Marie-Astrid):

Afin de lever toute ambiguïté juridique, il est précisé que les règles de succession au trône décrites à l’article 44 de la proposition de révision ne s’appliqueront pas rétroactivement, mais pour la première fois à la succession du Grand-Duc Henri.

(In order to remove all juridical ambiguity, it is stipulated that the rules of succession to the throne described in article 44 of the reform proposition will not apply retroactively, but for the first time to the succession to Grand Duke Henri.)

https://wdocs-pub.chd.lu/docs/exped/0114/122/229221.pdf
​

This still leaves one important question unanswered, however. Should Article 132 be understood so that the line of Marie-Astrid was sidelined for all time to come as a result of Henri's accession, or is she together with her descendants now in line after Henri's children and grandchildren? The Nassau family pact applied to people who were considered part of the house of Nassau, so not necessary a princess who due to her marriage had become a memer of the Imperial house of Austria, if the old logic from the times of Holy Roman empire is followed. But that line of argument is now obsolete as well, since the new constitution doesn't limit the succession rights to the "House of Nassau" but to the descendants of GD Adolphe.

In light of the above quote, my guess is that the intent of the lawmakers was to include all branches descending from Grand Duke Adolphe, even though I personally find that to be a very poor choice, since the vast majority of them have no meaningful connection to Luxembourg.