Luxembourg Succession & Titles

[Countessmeout]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] 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).

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.

 

[ashelen]

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......

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If at some point it becomes obviously clear that Amalia will be the future grand duchess, I could see the grand duke (whether it be the current one or Guillaume) granting her and her younger brother the titles of prince(ss) of Luxembourg; for now, they are 'just' prince(ss) of Nassau.

If Guillaume ascends the throne before having a child of his own, his brother Félix and sister-in-law Claire will automatically become Hereditary Grand Duke and Hereditary Grand Duchess, and their children will automatically become Prince(ss) of Luxembourg, by the application of § 4b of the family bylaws.

Décret grand-ducal du 18 juin 2012 portant coordination du Statut de famille du 5 mai 1907. - Legilux
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau


The issue arises with the potential children of Princess Amalia. By the terms of § 4b, they will not be entitled to any title or to the family name of Nassau until their mother is the Hereditary Grand Duchess (in other words, until their grandfather Félix either inherits the throne or predeceases Guillaume).

Furthermore, § 4b requires descendants not in male line to have the family name of their father, with the exception of children of a Grand Duchess or Hereditary Grand Duchess. The grand duke will have no ability to change the family name of Princess Amalia's children to Nassau, even if they are expected to take the throne, unless a change is made to the house law itself.

I guess it would be somewhat insensitive to make anything "official" about Amalia's possible succession as it would show/imply official recognition of the fact Gui & Steph can't or are unlikely to have children. For now there is still Guillaume and theoretically Felix's reign to get through so I don't see an announcement until Guillaume and Stephanie reach an old age at the minimum IMO.

That is an understandable consideration, but I'm not sure if postponing her potential preparation as heiress until middle age would be considered workable; it would at least be exceptional in the context of monarchies which follow primogeniture.

 

[maria-olivia]

Heditary Grand Duchess Stephanie is like our Queen Fabiola , She has to give a Heir to her Country.
It is unrespectful to speak already about the Heiress Princess Amalia.

 

[Somebody]

Heditary Grand Duchess Stephanie is like our Queen Fabiola , She has to give a Heir to her Country.
It is unrespectful to speak already about the Heiress Princess Amalia.

Would you consider both Guillaume and Stephanie (as having or not having a child is something that both husband and wife are part of; although for some reason most people will focus on the wife) a failure if they don't produce a 'heir'. Did Badouin and Fabiola fail as king and queen because they didn't fulfill their 'obligation' to have children?

As far as I'm concerned the succession is secure (at least nowadays) both in Belgium and Luxembourg; independent of the monarch and/or his/her heir have a child of their own.

It would indeed be unrespectful to 'declare' princess Amalia the heir but it shows a sense of reality that she currently IS the heir of her generation. We could look at it as follows: she is the heiress presumptive of her generation and not the heiress apparent (that will only happen if her uncle doesn't have children and her father becomes grand duke - alternatively, she might 'loose' the position of heiress presumptive of her generation if a cousin is born - to G&S).

Note: that several well-known monarchs also never were the heiress apparent but only the heiress presumptive: for example, queen Elizabeth, queen Margrethe and former queen Beatrix theoretically could have been 'passed' by a younger brother (if born) as long as either their father (Elizabeth, Margrethe) or mother (Beatrix) were still alive. Nonetheless, from a certain age they were prepared to take up the throne. A current heiress presumptive that could be passed by a brother is the princess of Asturias; if her parents would have a son (and the law isn't changed) she would loose her current status as heir to the throne. Nonetheless, she is fully prepared for her role as future queen.

 

[Somebody]

If Guillaume ascends the throne before having a child of his own, his brother Félix and sister-in-law Claire will automatically become Hereditary Grand Duke and Hereditary Grand Duchess, and their children will automatically become Prince(ss) of Luxembourg, by the application of § 4b of the family bylaws.

Décret grand-ducal du 18 juin 2012 portant coordination du Statut de famille du 5 mai 1907. - Legilux
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau

Thanks, excellent point! So, there is indeed no need to do anything about it (although that doesn't necessarily mean that Henri won't).

The issue arises with the potential children of Princess Amalia. By the terms of § 4b, they will not be entitled to any title or to the family name of Nassau until their mother is the Hereditary Grand Duchess (in other words, until their grandfather Félix either inherits the throne or predeceases Guillaume).

Furthermore, § 4b requires descendants not in male line to have the family name of their father, with the exception of children of a Grand Duchess or Hereditary Grand Duchess. The grand duke will have no ability to change the family name of Princess Amalia's children to Nassau, even if they are expected to take the throne, unless a change is made to the house law itself.

If that would indeed be the case, I would expect them to change the house law to accommodate this specific situation.

That is an understandable consideration, but I'm not sure if postponing her potential preparation as heiress until middle age would be considered workable; it would at least be exceptional in the context of monarchies which follow primogeniture.

I agree. I don't think king Philippe's preparation started when Baudouin and Fabiola were in 'old age'. They were definitely preparing him for his future role much earlier and Albert would most likely never have been king had Baudouin died at an older age... (or if Albert had divorced Paola - as he himself stated) In both cases the throne would have been passed straight to Philippe.

 

[Countessmeout]

No matter how secure the succession is, there is always going to be the pressure and the assumption for the heir to have a child. Plain and simple. Can you imagine when Prince Charles was single if someone said 'oh well no rush to have kids, there are 500 people in line to the throne after you, including a niece and nephew, no worry if you have a kid.' Yeah that was true, but people still expected the future king to have children of his own. That's just the simple reality of being the heir to a throne.

Now if it can't happen, that's another matter. No it didn't make Fabiola and Badouin failures as king and queen. And it wont make Guilllaume and Stephanie failures if they can't. The assumption being they Cant, and not simply they have chosen not to. Choosing not to have kids in their position is another matter all together. But both spoke of wanting kids when they got married, and both came from large catholic families.

As for Leonor, she really has no concern. Even if her mother suddenly got pregnant at her age which I don't see happening. Spain was in the process of changing the laws when the queen got pregnant with Sofia. They postponed the process when they learned that Sofia was a girl. If suddenly the queen became pregnant with a boy, I see the law being changed finally.


Amalia doesn't need an official proclamation made. She is the heiress presumptive of her age. Its natural succession. Just as if Charles had no kids, Andrew and his daughters would naturally have come next. Its not a question of who next comes in line.

I am sure the two brothers have spoken to each other about possibilities. And consideration for Amalia's upbringing, both in Luxembourg and things like education, will have to be discussed. But no need for this to be public.

 

[Blog Real]

I'm sure the Grand Ducal Family has already talked about this issue and what will happen if Guillaume and Stephanie have no children. Everything must be thought out.

 

[Stefan]

As for Leonor, she really has no concern. Even if her mother suddenly got pregnant at her age which I don't see happening. Spain was in the process of changing the laws when the queen got pregnant with Sofia. They postponed the process when they learned that Sofia was a girl. If suddenly the queen became pregnant with a boy, I see the law being changed finally.

Actually in Spain they hab´ve until today not started to chabnge the succesion law to the Throne as it is a Part of the Constitution and to change it is a very complicated Procedur with new elections between and a Referendum at the End.

 

[Durham]

I'm sure the Grand Ducal Family has already talked about this issue and what will happen if Guillaume and Stephanie have no children. Everything must be thought out.

Yes I'm sure you're right. On a human level I'm sure everyone wishes them every possible happiness. It is not fair how women are often singled out for comment in these sort of sensitive & highly personal situations.

I hate to think how some sections of the British media would react in a similar situation in the UK.

 

[victor1319]

Fideikommiss...

Hmmm, that makes me wonder, what will happen to the fortune of the grand-ducal family. Let's say a girl inherits the throne, because then laws were changed and all...

What, beside the throne might she inherit too, if the Grand Duke decides to stick with the male heirs?

Are the castles of the grand-ducal family owned by them, or by the state?
And if they are owned by them, can they fully decide, what will happen to them, or are they Fideikommiss ... - owned by the monarch, without the right to be sold and so on, wikipedia calls it:"Fee Tail".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail

An important question in Luxembourg! They are true billionaires!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Hmmm, that makes me wonder, what will happen to the fortune of the grand-ducal family. Let's say a girl inherits the throne, because then laws were changed and all...

What, beside the throne might she inherit too, if the Grand Duke decides to stick with the male heirs?

Are the castles of the grand-ducal family owned by them, or by the state?
And if they are owned by them, can they fully decide, what will happen to them, or are they Fideikommiss ... - owned by the monarch, without the right to be sold and so on, wikipedia calls it:"Fee Tail".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail

An important question in Luxembourg! They are true billionaires!

There is indeed a grand-ducal Fideikommiss which owns the fortune of the grand-ducal family. Article 26 of the Nassau Family Pact associates the inheritance of the Fideikommiss with the inheritance of the throne, so there is no danger that it will pass to Prince Liam and out of the ruling line if the throne passes to Princess Amalia or a future daughter of Guillaume and Stéphanie.

Décret grand-ducal du 11 juin 2012 portant coordination du Pacte de famille du 30 juin 1783. - Legilux

Art. 26. In dem Falle, dass der Hauschef ohne eheliche Leibeserben versterben sollte, folgen, insofern sie sukzessionsfähig sind, nach dem Recht der Erstgeburt in die mit der Innehabung des Thrones des Großherzogtums Luxemburg verbundene Innehabung des Haus-Fideikommisses zunächst des abgelebten Großherzogs Geschwister und deren Nachkommen, und, bei deren Mangel, die nächstverwandten Haus- oder Familienmitglieder und deren Nachkommen.

 

[Blog Real]

The fortune will pass to Princess Amalia if Guillaume and Stephanie have no children.
Berg Castle will remain the family residence.
Everything will be as it is now.
There is no chance of fortune leaving the family.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Décret grand-ducal du 18 juin 2012 portant coordination du Statut de famille du 5 mai 1907. - Legilux
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau


The issue arises with the potential children of Princess Amalia. By the terms of § 4b, they will not be entitled to any title or to the family name of Nassau until their mother is the Hereditary Grand Duchess (in other words, until their grandfather Félix either inherits the throne or predeceases Guillaume).

Furthermore, § 4b requires descendants not in male line to have the family name of their father, with the exception of children of a Grand Duchess or Hereditary Grand Duchess. The grand duke will have no ability to change the family name of Princess Amalia's children to Nassau, even if they are expected to take the throne, unless a change is made to the house law itself.

If that would indeed be the case, I would expect them to change the house law to accommodate this specific situation.

I hope that would be done, but if Grand Duke Henri had wanted the right to confer the name of Nassau on children of an heiress presumptive, wouldn't he have made it so when he issued the new house laws?

 

[Somebody]

I hope that would be done, but if Grand Duke Henri had wanted the right to confer the name of Nassau on children of an heiress presumptive, wouldn't he have made it so when he issued the new house laws?

They probably just didn't think that through. At that point he most likely expected Guillaume to have children of his own; in which case there would be a heir apparent. For this issue to arise not only Guillaume needed to remain childless but also Felix' first child would need to be a girl (or alternatively: no children for Felix either because in that case it would be Alexandra's children whom this already would apply to).

It seems that most royal houses do these things mostly as the need arises instead of thinking things completely through and ensuring new regulations take care of all possible scenarios.

 

[Somebody]

Noah was also never in line due to being born after the marriage and renunciation. It's my understanding of the 1907 law that renunciation or no renunciation, Gabriel and Noah would not have been in line given that their parents' marriage was not legally approved by the Grand Duke. The renunciation did impact Prince Louis's own rights (and presumably the rights of potential children from a second, approved marriage, although I haven't seen the text of the renunciation).

The renunciation took place before the marriage; so had he not renounced his rights and had Henri decided to approve the marriage, Noah would have been in line to the throne; so imo it did impact his rights. Of course, it was a coordinated effort in which the family decided it would be best for Louis to renounce his rights (just like his uncle had done upon marrying the mother of his child after having a child out-of-wedlock). The question of approval was irrelevant after the renunciation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The renunciation took place before the marriage; so had he not renounced his rights and had Henri decided to approve the marriage, Noah would have been in line to the throne; so imo it did impact his rights.

I see what you mean. In that scenario Gabriel would have been in line along with his brother, as Article 330 of the Luxembourg Civil Code legitimizes children upon a subsequent marriage (unless there is a house law which makes an exception for the grand-ducal family).

Of course, it was a coordinated effort in which the family decided it would be best for Louis to renounce his rights (just like his uncle had done upon marrying the mother of his child after having a child out-of-wedlock). The question of approval was irrelevant after the renunciation.

I agree in regard to the succession, but I suppose it remained relevant to the titles of Tessy and the children. Had the marriage received approval, the 1995 decree held that Tessy would automatically share the titles of her husband (although in any event, the Grand Duke chose not to follow the rules of the decree).

A renunciation which applied to all his descendants would also be relevant in case of a second marriage; presumably no one at that point expected Louis to marry a second time, but the potential precedent may have been a factor in the family's decisions.

They probably just didn't think that through. At that point he most likely expected Guillaume to have children of his own; in which case there would be a heir apparent. For this issue to arise not only Guillaume needed to remain childless but also Felix' first child would need to be a girl (or alternatively: no children for Felix either because in that case it would be Alexandra's children whom this already would apply to).

It seems that most royal houses do these things mostly as the need arises instead of thinking things completely through and ensuring new regulations take care of all possible scenarios.

Good point!

It could potentially be an issue even with an heir apparent; if Guillaume's first child is a daughter, her children will not be Nassaus (without further changes to the house law) during the reign of their great-grandfather.

 

[Somebody]

I see what you mean. In that scenario Gabriel would have been in line along with his brother, as Article 330 of the Luxembourg Civil Code legitimizes children upon a subsequent marriage (unless there is a house law which makes an exception for the grand-ducal family).

We would indeed need to look it up; but legitimized is not the same as being born in an approved marriage. So, my understanding so far is dat in Luxembourg no children born out of wedlock are eligible to the throne. Only in Monaco they are upon their parents' subsequent marriage as far as I am aware.

A renunciation which applied to all his descendants would also be relevant in case of a second marriage; presumably no one at that point expected Louis to marry a second time, but the potential precedent may have been a factor in the family's decisions.

True; although they might not have expected Louis to marry a second time, they surely were aware of that potentially happening (as Jean was divorced by then). I don't think they wanted younger children (whether it be Noah or any children from a second marriage) have succession rights when Louis' eldest son doesn't.

Good point!

It could potentially be an issue even with an heir apparent; if Guillaume's first child is a daughter, her children will not be Nassaus (without further changes to the house law) during the reign of their great-grandfather.

As Luxembourg has the practice of abdication, it isn't very likely that this situation will occur (Jean's first great-grandchild was born 5,5 years after his abdication (and not to the heir's heir but out of wedlock to a very young younger child of the heir) but if it occurs they surely will deal with it. And as Guillaume is in his late thirties when his first child is to be born, it is rather likely that he will be grand duke by the time he will have his first grandchild.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

We would indeed need to look it up;

I included the links to the Civil Code and the 1907 succession law in my posts above, so anyone who is interested can look it up as well.

but legitimized is not the same as being born in an approved marriage. So, my understanding so far is dat in Luxembourg no children born out of wedlock are eligible to the throne.

On what do you base your understanding?
In my opinion, the statement in the law of 1907 would translate to "from a marriage" and not "born in a marriage".

Only in Monaco they are upon their parents' subsequent marriage as far as I am aware.

If the argument is that legitimized is not the same as being born in an approved marriage, that is relevant to Monaco as well. Would you accordingly say that children born out of wedlock are ineligible for the Monegasque throne?

I am not personally aware of any European country other than Britain enacting legislation to bar legitimated children from succeeding, although I haven't looked into the issue.

True; although they might not have expected Louis to marry a second time, they surely were aware of that potentially happening (as Jean was divorced by then). I don't think they wanted younger children (whether it be Noah or any children from a second marriage) have succession rights when Louis' eldest son doesn't.

Yes, that's also a good point. Grand Dukes Jean and Henri also addressed the issues of divorce and separation in the 1995 and 2004 grand-ducal decrees, which is further indication they kept the possibility in mind.

 

[Somebody]

I included the links to the Civil Code and the 1907 succession law in my posts above, so anyone who is interested can look it up as well.

On what do you base your understanding?
In my opinion, the statement in the law of 1907 would translate to "from a marriage" and not "born in a marriage".

Based on the traditional meaning; 'from a marriage' would have meant to everyone in 1907, a child born within a marriage. In the early 20th century nobody would think of a child born out of wedlock to be 'from a marriage'. The child was supposed to be conceived within marriage - but as that was hard to proof in border cases, the outward rule of being born in marriage was how typically was decided whether a child was legitimate. In German it states 'aus gemäss den Familienstatuten Unseres Hauses geschlossener Ehe', so out of an marriage that meets the requirements of the Family Statue, i.e. out of an (House of Nassau-)approved marriage: a child born prior to a marriage imho would not be born OUT of an approved marriage.

Nonetheless, interpretation might change with the time and it seems it does.

Edit: I looked it up for the Netherlands, and it seems that until 1998 children were either legitimate or not; legitimate were only those born in marriage or within 306 after a marriage was dissolved (either by death or divorce). Since 1998, marriage to the mother AND formally recognized by the father will legitimize a child resulting in the same status as if it had been born in wedlock. However, in the case of a royal, our parliament is quite strict in approving royal marriages (3 out of 7 marriages of children of recent queens not approved; 1 contrary to the wish of the couple), so for the moment I don't think they would formally approve such a marriage - in the future that might change. And it seems the GD family itself holds the same opinion.

Edit 2: Looked up the 2011-change and noticed the following phrase ' ohne eheliche sukzessionsfähige Leibeserben' (translated to marital heirs of the blood' by Luxarazzi). So, this at least suggest that being 'legitimate' (which might include legitimized) is not sufficient; they also need to be "succession 'fähig'" - which leads to the conclusion that not all of them by definition are. Haven't found the exact wording for who is sukzessionsfähig.

If the argument is that legitimized is not the same as being born in an approved marriage, that is relevant to Monaco as well. Would you accordingly say that children born out of wedlock are ineligible for the Monegasque throne?

I looked up the constitution and in their it does not specify how 'legitimate' issue should be interpreted. However, according to various sources the 2002-change meant that adopted children could no longer ascend the throne; while I would argue that an adopted child is also legitimate, so somewhere there must be some additional documents that would provide both interpretations.

And regarding legitimized vs born within marriage is not the same; it was my boss who has two legitimized children who recently pointed out to me that according to somehow the status is different. She did not elaborate on this; but it clearly hurt her that her children were seen in a different light because of it.

I am not personally aware of any European country other than Britain enacting legislation to bar legitimated children from succeeding, although I haven't looked into the issue.

Interesting; in my case it is the opposite, I am not aware of any country that would include children born out of wedlock from succeeding to the throne; except for Monaco. The fact that in the case of Luxembourg in two cases were expected to give up their succession rights upon marrying clearly suggests that they are not expected to ascend the throne - whether they would formally be allowed otherwise seems up to interpretation.

 

[Somebody]

So far I haven't found the 2012 House Law in its original language but Luxarzzi did a great job translating it. A few details that seem relevant in this discussion:

Art. 2
(…) The Grand Ducal Line consists of all direct marital descendants of Grand Duke Adolph (agnates and cognates).
(…) The Grand Ducal House consists of the head of state as head of the house, the former heads of state, first grade descendants of a head of the house born within a marriage according to the house rules, and the members of the family called upon to succeed to the throne according to the laws of primogeniture.(...)

If anyone can find the German version (I assume the original to be in German just like the 1783 Vertrag), or knows where to find 'the house rules', please share.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In German it states 'aus gemäss den Familienstatuten Unseres Hauses geschlossener Ehe', so out of an marriage that meets the requirements of the Family Statue, i.e. out of an (House of Nassau-)approved marriage: a child born prior to a marriage imho would not be born OUT of an approved marriage.

Thank you for bringing the "aus" to my attention! I am now inclined towards agreeing with your interpretation; are you a German speaker, and if not, are any German speakers available to comment on the phrasing?

Based on the traditional meaning; 'from a marriage' would have meant to everyone in 1907, a child born within a marriage. In the early 20th century nobody would think of a child born out of wedlock to be 'from a marriage'. The child was supposed to be conceived within marriage - but as that was hard to proof in border cases, the outward rule of being born in marriage was how typically was decided whether a child was legitimate. [...]

Nonetheless, interpretation might change with the time and it seems it does.

Edit: I looked it up for the Netherlands, and it seems that until 1998 children were either legitimate or not; legitimate were only those born in marriage or within 306 after a marriage was dissolved (either by death or divorce). Since 1998, marriage to the mother AND formally recognized by the father will legitimize a child resulting in the same status as if it had been born in wedlock. However, in the case of a royal, our parliament is quite strict in approving royal marriages (3 out of 7 marriages of children of recent queens not approved; 1 contrary to the wish of the couple), so for the moment I don't think they would formally approve such a marriage - in the future that might change. And it seems the GD family itself holds the same opinion.

Thank you for looking up the legislative history in the Netherlands! It is clear that in certain systems of law children born out of wedlock were approached as illegitimate in spite of a subsequent marriage. But other legal systems traditionally took the opposite approach. The law of legitimation by subsequent marriage can be traced to as early as the Middle Ages, when it also was incorporated into the canon law of the Catholic church.

Legitimation by Subsequent Marriage

I looked up the constitution and in their it does not specify how 'legitimate' issue should be interpreted. However, according to various sources the 2002-change meant that adopted children could no longer ascend the throne; while I would argue that an adopted child is also legitimate, so somewhere there must be some additional documents that would provide both interpretations.

Hereditary Princess Charlotte of Monaco, if she is the adopted heir of whom you were thinking, was eligible to succeed to the throne under a provision formerly in the Grimaldi house law, but removed in 2002.

The House Laws of Monaco until 2002

It was my understanding that you considered legitimized children eligible to ascend the throne of Monaco, thus the question why the same would not be true for Luxembourg given that the civil codes of both countries recognize legitimation by subsequent marriage.

Interesting; in my case it is the opposite, I am not aware of any country that would include children born out of wedlock from succeeding to the throne; except for Monaco. The fact that in the case of Luxembourg in two cases were expected to give up their succession rights upon marrying clearly suggests that they are not expected to ascend the throne - whether they would formally be allowed otherwise seems up to interpretation.

If I am understanding you correctly, neither of us have looked far into this issue. In modern times, no heirs in direct line to the thrones of any of the present European monarchies (even Monaco) have had children out of wedlock and subsequently married the mother/father, so there is no direct proof for either opinion on the basis of real decisions. (And perhaps the monarchies are waiting for the situation to actually come about before clarifying the relevant laws...)

If anyone can find the German version (I assume the original to be in German just like the 1783 Vertrag), or knows where to find 'the house rules', please share.

You can find the new version of the 1783 Nassau Family Pact, including the current laws of succession, here:

Décret grand-ducal du 11 juin 2012 portant coordination du Pacte de famille du 30 juin 1783. - Legilux

And this is the new version of the 1907 law, but it no longer addresses the succession.

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

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is the line of succession long, do you know; or is it restricted to being a direct descendant of the last monarch etc.?

There are some who interpret the instruction to first apply the new rule of absolute primogeniture to "Our" (Henri's) descendants in Article 24 of the Nassau Family Pact as a limitation to Henri's descendants.

But there are others who interpret the phrase "House or Family members" in Article 26 to apply succession rights to other members of the Grand-Ducal Family.

Décret grand-ducal du 11 juin 2012 portant coordination du Pacte de famille du 30 juin 1783. - Legilux


By law, the Grand-Ducal Family consists of all marital descendants of Grand Duchess Charlotte (the grandmother of Grand Duke Henri) and their spouses and widows/widowers.

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


The writers of the blog Luxarazzi have stated that they sought clarification from the court concerning the line of succession, but received no answers.

The first born becomes the heir.
If a girl is born first folowed by a boy will the boy be heir, like in Monaco?
Or is Luxembourg like the UK, where a firstborn girl won't be displaced by a younger brother?

Luxembourg adopted absolute primogeniture in 2011 so if Guillaume's firstborn is a girl, she will be the heir apparent.

And before adopting absolute primogeniture Luxembourg did not use the Monegasque rule, but a rule which could be referred to as semi-Salic. Had the changes not been made, Prince Liam of Nassau (the son of Grand Duke Henri's second son) would have been the heir of his generation if Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume had only daughters.

 

[maria-olivia]

The future Child and Heir ? will be the Comte de Lannoy Grandson , one of the hightest Noble Families of Belgium.

 

[Blog Real]

I remembered a question and I think this is the ideal topic to ask. When Princess Alexandra gets married, will her husband have the title of prince?

 

[Somebody]

I remembered a question and I think this is the ideal topic to ask. When Princess Alexandra gets married, will her husband have the title of prince?

According to the current house laws: no.

See Luxarazzi.

It also specifies that off-spring bears the last name of the father and that titles are limited to male line marital descendents; so she won't pass on her titles or names to her children either.

 

[Blog Real]

According to the current house laws: no.

See Luxarazzi.

It also specifies that off-spring bears the last name of the father and that titles are limited to male line marital descendents; so she won't pass on her titles or names to her children either.

It's unfair to Princess Alexandra and her future children....

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It's unfair to Princess Alexandra and her future children....

But in Belgium (offspring of Astrid), the Netherlands (offspring of Margriet) and Sweden (offspring of Madeleine), in hindsight, they regret the ease with which the princely titles have been distributed, with a flood of Von Österreich-Estes, Van Vollenhovens and O'Neills being a member of the Royal House and having a princely title. Not for nothing in all three named countries the titulature has been limited, basically to children of the King and children of the Heir, regardless the gender. Luxembourg will undoubtedly go the same way. If Alexandra marries a prince de Lobkowicz, her children will be princes and princess de Lobkowicz anyway. She has it in her own hand if she is attached to titles for her offspring.

 

[Blog Real]

But in Belgium (offspring of Astrid), the Netherlands (offspring of Margriet) and Sweden (offspring of Madeleine), in hindsight, they regret the ease with which the princely titles have been distributed, with a flood of Von Österreich-Estes, Van Vollenhovens and O'Neills being a member of the Royal House and having a princely title. Not for nothing in all three named countries the titulature has been limited, basically to children of the King and children of the Heir, regardless the gender. Luxembourg will undoubtedly go the same way. If Alexandra marries a prince de Lobkowicz, her children will be princes and princess de Lobkowicz anyway. She has it in her own hand if she is attached to titles for her offspring.

Yes, and I understand that. But at least the Grand Duke should offer a title to Princess Alexandra's future husband, since the wives of Princess Alexandra's brothers also have titles, it would be fairer even if Alexandra's children had no titles.