Luxembourg Succession & Titles

[Blog Real]

When Princess Alexandra married your husband will have the title of Prince?

 

[An Ard Ri]

When Princess Alexandra married your husband will have the title of Prince?

Not unless she marries a Prince or he's created a Prince.

 

[SydneyLux]

When Princess Alexandra married your husband will have the title of Prince?

The house law states that she will keep her title and remain a member of the House and that even her spouse will become a member of the House though he will not get a title. Their children will have their father's last name and if he has a title, his title.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

What is an arrete grand-ducal?

Thank you MAfan! An arrete grand-ducal sounded extremely fancy.

 

[MAfan]

Basically it is a decree issued by the Grand Duke.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The Proclamation and Enthronement Ceremony of HRH Grand Duke Jean in 1964


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6m2zm71104

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Basically it is a decree issued by the Grand Duke.

Indeed, the British equivalent is an Order in Council, a Proclamation, a Royal Warrant, a Letter in Patent. An Arrêté Grand-Ducal is the same as a Koninklijk Besluit (Royal Decree) in the Netherlands (both Countries were under one Crown until 1890). Whatever the exact name, it all means an executive form of legislation based on a higher Act (a parent Act). No parliamentary vote is required, since it is always in the framework of a higher Act.

In an Arrêté Grand-Ducal always the source (the parent Act) on which it is based, is named.

 

[eya]

A Princess' Right to the Throne http://fb.me/8s1f2V5Hc

 

[Mbruno]

What is an arrete grand-ducal?

Thank you MAfan! An arrete grand-ducal sounded extremely fancy.

Arrêté grand-ducal means a grand-ducal decree in French. In Belgium, a royal decree is also called an arrêté royal in French (or koninklijk besluit in Dutch).

Basically, a royal decree in a kingdom, or a grand-ducal decree in a grand duchy, is an executive order issued by the monarch. In most constitutional monarchies, a royal decree is pre-approved by the council of ministers (i.e. the elected government of the country) and is signed by one or more ministers who are responsible for its contents; the monarch himself is not responsible although the decree is issued in his name.

Click on the following links for examples of royal decrees in Belgium (in Dutch and in French), in the Netherlands (in Dutch), and in Spain (in Spanish). You can see at the bottom the names of the responsible ministers who sign the decree.

In the United Kingdom, however, the Queen does not issue royal decrees, but rather what is called an "order in council", which is similar. In Sweden, on the other hand, under the new constitution that came into force in 1975, executive orders are now made by the government alone and the King accordingly doesn't have the power to issue royal decrees; however, the King of Sweden still meets with the government in advisory councils, and, as the constitutional Head of the State, he can also issue diplomatic credentials and award certain honors to Swedish and foreign citizens.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A Princess' Right to the Throne http://fb.me/8s1f2V5Hc

Women were never prohibited from ascending to the throne of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

The first succession law, the Nassau family pact of 1783, allowed female succession if the male line of the house of Nassau became extinct.

Succession in Nassau and Luxemburg

The second succession law, the Nassau family statute of 1907, was semi-Salic and recognized the rights of succession of Grand Duke Wilhelm IV's daughters and all of their descendants who were born in an approved marriage.

http://data.legilux.public.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-memorial-1907-37-fr-pdf.pdf

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Women were never prohibited from ascending to the throne of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

The first succession law, the Nassau family pact of 1783, allowed female succession if the male line of the house of Nassau became extinct.

Succession in Nassau and Luxemburg

The second succession law, the Nassau family statute of 1907, was semi-Salic and recognized the rights of succession of Grand Duke Wilhelm IV's daughters and all of their descendants who were born in an approved marriage.

http://data.legilux.public.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-memorial-1907-37-fr-pdf.pdf

Aren't the two the same thing. I thought semi-Salic succession is when women can only inherit or ascend to the throne if there is none in the male line.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Aren't the two the same thing. I thought semi-Salic succession is when women can only inherit or ascend to the throne if there is none in the male line.

Yes, both laws were semi-Salic. The difference was that women's descendants were not in the line of succession up to 1907.

 

[Countessmeout]

It went further then that. In order for a woman to inherit, there had to be absolutely no possible male heir to inherit. Customarily, under semi-Salic, if a king had no sons, his daughters would be heir to the throne before say a nephew, cousin or brother of the king. This was not the case in Nassau as we see with the Netherlands, when we see Luxembourg dividing off.

If the rules of 1907 were in place, wilhemina would have been grand duchess of Luxembourg as she had no brothers. But under the old rules, there had to be no legitimate male heir alive, and there was, Adolph. Adolph was not even closely related, he was a member of a cadet branch. His closest relation to William III was through his great grandmother who was a daughter of William IV of orange.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

RoyalHighness 2002 was correct; under semi-Salic succession, a woman or her descendant can only inherit the throne when the male line becomes extinct. The Netherlands also followed semi-Salic law, but Adolph was not a male-line descendant of King Willem I, so he did not become the King of the Netherlands.

 

[SydneyLux]

The second succession law, the Nassau family statute of 1907, was semi-Salic and recognized the rights of succession of Grand Duke Wilhelm IV's daughters and all of their descendants who were born in an approved marriage.

http://data.legilux.public.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-memorial-1907-37-fr-pdf.pdf

It's a bit more complicated than that. The 1907 law didn't give all of Wilhelm's daughters succession rights per se. It gave Marie-Adelaide and her male heirs succession rights. In the case that Marie-Adelaide would die without any heirs (as she did), the same would apply to the next daughter. However, Charlotte didn't technically have succession rights as long as her sister was Grand Duchess. The same applies to Wilhelm's other daughters. Hilda, Antonia, Elisabeth and Sophie and their descendance who do not have a right to Luxembourg's throne. The same applies to the fours sisters of Grand Duke Jean, his two daughters and niece (of the male line). They would only have rights, if no member of the male line (or Princess Alexandra's) was alive.

If the rules of 1907 were in place, wilhemina would have been grand duchess of Luxembourg as she had no brothers. But under the old rules, there had to be no legitimate male heir alive, and there was, Adolph. Adolph was not even closely related, he was a member of a cadet branch. His closest relation to William III was through his great grandmother who was a daughter of William IV of orange.

Adolph inherited the Luxembourgish throne as he was seventeenth cousin once removed through the Nassau line of Willem III.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's a bit more complicated than that. The 1907 law didn't give all of Wilhelm's daughters succession rights per se. It gave Marie-Adelaide and her male heirs succession rights. In the case that Marie-Adelaide would die without any heirs (as she did), the same would apply to the next daughter. However, Charlotte didn't technically have succession rights as long as her sister was Grand Duchess. The same applies to Wilhelm's other daughters. Hilda, Antonia, Elisabeth and Sophie and their descendance who do not have a right to Luxembourg's throne. The same applies to the fours sisters of Grand Duke Jean, his two daughters and niece (of the male line). They would only have rights, if no member of the male line (or Princess Alexandra's) was alive.

Naturally, no person can inherit the throne as long as the heirs who are above them in the line of succession are alive. When I say "succession rights" I am referring to all of the descendants who would in theory have inherited the throne if the heirs in the line of succession before them had died.

Article 1 of the old law of 1907, if I have understood it correctly, meant that all of Princess Marie-Adelheid's legitimate descendants, male and female, who were born in an approved marriage, were above her sisters and their descendants in the line of succession.

Art. I . — Da Uns ein männlicher Erbe bisher versagt geblieben ist und seit dem Tode Unseres Oheims des Prinzen Nicolas Liebden ohne Hinterlassung successionsfahiger Descendenz der Fürstliche Mannesstamm des Hauses Nassau auf Unseren Augen allein steht, kann der in Artikel 42 des Erbvereins von 1783 gesetzte Fall eintreten und hat alsdann Unsere erstgeborene Tochter Prinzessin Marie-Adelheid und zunächst ihr Mannesstamm, aus gemäss den Familienstatuten Unseres Hauses geschlossener Ehe, nach dem Recht der Erstgeburt,Uns in der Krone Luxemburg, sowie als Chef Unseres Hauses und in Besitz und Nutzniessung des gesamten Hausfideicommisses nachzufolgen, jedoch ist bis zur Vollendung ihres achtzehnten Lebensjahres die Regentschaft und Vormundschaft für sie von Unserer vielgeliebten Gemahlin der Grossherzogin Maria-Anna zu führen.

Sollte Unsere genannte vielgeliebte Tochter ohne Hinterlassung einer Nachkommenschaft aus gemäss den Familienstatuten Unseres Hauses geschlossener Ehe versterben, so sind Unsere andern vielgeliebten Töchter und ihre Linien in gleicher Weise nach Primogenitur-Recht zur Erbfolge berufen.

 

[Somebody]

I guess it is a matter of perspective. I believe the Nassau pact stipulated the Salic Law. However, in the event of a discontinuation of the monarchy due to that law, the closest heir of the last male would succeed. In the communication regarding the change it was worded as 'exclusion':

Apparently, the interpretation of how the non-male line succession was to take place wasn't exactly clear, which is why special decrees were made in 1907 making it clear how it was to be applied regarding his daughters. Which is: male line descendants first for the eldest daughter, than for second daughter, etc.

Because of the above princess Charlotte of Nassau is still considered NOT to be in line of succession. Only in the event of a possible discontinuation of the monarchy, the closest heir in female line will be identified (which could either be a male or female).

So, if salic law still applied with the provision for semi-salic succession in case of discontinuation, I'm trying to think of who would be the heir. I am not so sure in the cases of Henri, Guillaume and Sebastién: would Alexandra trump Amalia or the other way around? If Felix or Liam was the last male ruler it would surely be Amalia.

If prince Guillaume or one of his sons would have been the last heir it would be Charlotte. In all other cases it would really depend on what the family would look like at that moment: whether it would be Marie-Astrid or her descendants (again in male line only at first; but currently that would only be a solution for one generation, so depending on the provision made they would most likely continu with Margareta's children) or less likely, unless, prince Robert ends up being the last male ruler, his elder sister princess Charlotte (daughter of prince Charles) and her three sons.

Edit: Mods, apologies, we should have taken this discussion to a more appropriate thread. Please feel free to move it.

Moved some relevant messages to a more appropriate thread.

Here is also a link to thecurrent law and to the explanation given (that I referenced in the post above).

 

[Somebody]

Seeing what staunch Catholics they are, I'd almost say it is some sort of a requirement.

In fact the Nassau's are originally protestants and when Grand Duke William IV, at the time only a prince of Nassau, fell in love with Infanta Maria Anna of Portugal, who was a catholic, his family was against the union. Only when in 1890 the Nassau-Weilburg branch came to power in Luxembourg, the marriage was encouraged as the Grand Duchy is a very catholic country. Upon marriage it was agreed that the children would be raised as catholics as William and his father thought that a catholic country should have a catholic monarch.

As far as I am aware the agreement was not that the children would be raised Catholic but that the sons (who were expected to succeed) would be raised protestant and the daughters (who were excluded from the line of succession) would be raised Catholic. In that way both families could accept the union (as the Portuguese king wasn't very much in favor either to see their grandchildren being brought up protestants). As the couple ended up with 6 daughters and no sons the family changed from being protestant to being roman catholic.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I guess it is a matter of perspective. I believe the Nassau pact stipulated the Salic Law. However, in the event of a discontinuation of the monarchy due to that law, the closest heir of the last male would succeed.

That is right, although it is technically considered "semi-Salic" when a female is stipulated to inherit in the event of extinction of the male line.

Apparently, the interpretation of how the non-male line succession was to take place wasn't exactly clear, which is why special decrees were made in 1907 making it clear how it was to be applied regarding his daughters. Which is: male line descendants first for the eldest daughter, than for second daughter, etc.

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.

Because of the above princess Charlotte of Nassau is still considered NOT to be in line of succession. Only in the event of a possible discontinuation of the monarchy, the closest heir in female line will be identified (which could either be a male or female).

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.)

Mémorial A n° 37 de 1907 - Legilux

So, if salic law still applied with the provision for semi-salic succession in case of discontinuation, I'm trying to think of who would be the heir. I am not so sure in the cases of Henri, Guillaume and Sebastién: would Alexandra trump Amalia or the other way around? If Felix or Liam was the last male ruler it would surely be Amalia.

If prince Guillaume or one of his sons would have been the last heir it would be Charlotte. In all other cases it would really depend on what the family would look like at that moment: whether it would be Marie-Astrid or her descendants (again in male line only at first; but currently that would only be a solution for one generation, so depending on the provision made they would most likely continu with Margareta's children) or less likely, unless, prince Robert ends up being the last male ruler, his elder sister princess Charlotte (daughter of prince Charles) and her three sons.

I agree, that would also seem to be the most likely situation. The 1907 law does not address the exact order of succession. However, as Heraldica says, the law was secretly changed numerous times, so the secret changes may have clarified the order of succession that would apply to non-male-line descendants.

Décret grand-ducal du 18 juin 2012 portant coordination du Statut de famille du 5 mai 1907. - Legilux

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.

 

[Somebody]

Naturally, no person can inherit the throne as long as the heirs who are above them in the line of succession are alive. When I say "succession rights" I am referring to all of the descendants who would in theory have inherited the throne if the heirs in the line of succession before them had died.

Article 1 of the old law of 1907, if I have understood it correctly, meant that all of Princess Marie-Adelheid's legitimate descendants, male and female, who were born in an approved marriage, were above her sisters and their descendants in the line of succession.

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.

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; most likely the rules would have been changed at that point. 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).

 

[Somebody]

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.

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

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.

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".

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.

 

[Somebody]

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...

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

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.

 

[Somebody]

Does anyone have the exact wording of the "Familienstatuten Unseres Hauses geschlossener Ehe" (in 1907 and later)?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

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')?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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 ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[ashelen]

So if the Grand Duke Guillaume & Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie don't have kids who will be the heir?