The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 11-03-2019, 03:09 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-03-2019, 03:15 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 322
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!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-03-2019, 05:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-01-2019, 06:57 AM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 3,532
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.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-01-2019, 09:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-01-2019, 02:40 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:16 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-04-2020, 01:21 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-04-2020, 04:04 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-04-2020, 05:04 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,896
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:

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-04-2020, 06:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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...)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-07-2020, 07:50 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yashal View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-07-2020, 08:40 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 5,871
The future Child and Heir ? will be the Comte de Lannoy Grandson , one of the hightest Noble Families of Belgium.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monaco's succession issues Julia Princely Family of Monaco 655 12-30-2019 09:06 PM
Titles, Names, Succession & Precedence after King Felipe's Accession dazzling Royal Family of Spain 49 06-24-2014 11:20 AM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM
Members of the Royal Family and Line of Succession - Broadest Sense hrhcp Royal House of Denmark 85 07-11-2012 11:20 PM




Popular Tags
alqasimi althorp aristocracy armenia belgian royal family birthday celebration castles charles of wales chittagong clarence house crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch dutch history dutch royal family felipe vi foundation french revolution future genealogy general news germany henry v hill historical drama house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of saxe-coburg and gotha jumma languages lithuanian castles mail meghan markle memoir mohammed vi monaco christening monaco history naples nobel 2019 norway official visit palaces palestine prince charles prince harry prince of wales russian imperial family saudi arabia settings spain spanish history spencer family state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts united kingdom usa


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×