Annulment for the Count of Paris and the Duchess of Montpensier

[V.F.H.78]

Future religious wedding for Henri, Count of Paris, and his second wife Michaela Cousino Quinones de Leon?
It is now possible because Prince Henri obtained the cancellation by Rome of his union with Duchess Marie Thérèse of Wurtemberg and because Micaela's first husband is dead.
Prochain mariage religieux pour les comtes de Paris ? | Noblesse & Royautés

 

[Warren]

If the report is correct, the Vatican has annulled the first marriage of the comte de Paris and Marie Thérèse of Württemberg. Although married for about 27 years and five children the Church has now ruled that the marriage never existed. Hmm

 

[Odette]

With his son getting married in a couple of months this was so (JIMHO) so uneccessary. The Duchess will go to her son's wedding from a marriage that never existed?

 

[Marengo]

With his son getting married in a couple of months this was so (JIMHO) so uneccessary. The Duchess will go to her son's wedding from a marriage that never existed?

According to the information I read on 'noblesseetroyautees' they already obtained the annullment in the autumn of 2008. It doesn't seem clear on what grounds though, members are speculating that perhaps the count of Paris can claim that they were forced into the marriage by his father. Some othe rinteresting information from the discussion: a member says that Charles de Gaulle was involved with the match too, as could 'use' it to improve French-German relations and because he made hints to the count of Paris about an eventual restauration of the French monarchy.

Fortunately enough the Vatican does not think that the children of annuled marriages are bastards, which technically would be the case if the parents were not married. Lots of 'Quelle hypocrisie' comments on the French board btw, quite understandably.

 

[Marengo]

The official announcement of the annulment by the website of the count of Paris, in French (obviously).

http://www.gotha.fr/Documents/comte%20de%20Paris.jpg

It also says that the count and countess of Paris intend to marry religiously in September of this year.

 

[rominet09]

I feel awfully sorry for the Duchess of Montpensier....such a brave Lady, finding herself alone with five children, two of them heavily handicapped !

 

[NotAPretender]

I realize that we aren't supposed to discuss religious matters on this board, but the issue of annulment seems to transcend this.

Annulment essentially says that at the moment of the marriage, there was an obstacle that prevented the free giving of consent to the marriage. Coercion is definitely an obstacle, and grounds for an annulment.

Children of a marriage that was entered into in good faith are not considered to be "bastards" or illegitimate.

It is rare that the Vatican directly grants an annulment. It is usually the purview of the Diocese or Archdiocese in which the petitioning member resides. However, in matters involving Catholic monarchs or royalty (such as Caroline of Monaco,) the Vatican may assume jurisdiction.

There is a Canonical court which "tries" the marriage; the presumption going into trial is that the marriage is fully valid. In fact, two of the three "triers" are proponents of the validity of the marriage.

It's neither an easy process nor a quick one. Although often referred to in sneering tones, it is taken very seriously and not lightly.

I actually wish that the making of a marriage was taken as seriously as the unmaking.

 

[Al_bina]

I find the whole situation really really sad for Duchess of Montpensier and her children. I fail to understand the reasoning behind Count's of Paris actions. Why to seek the annulment of his first marriage, thereby making the situation both embarrassing and awkward for his children and their mother? Why to spit at the face of his family?
By the way, who is going to inherent the title "Count of Paris"?

 

[NotAPretender]

I also don't understand the need to do this as this stage of the game. He and the Duchess of Montpensier have been civilly divorced since 1984, and the count and his current wife have no children. On its face, it seems churlish. Then again, if it arises from a genuine desire to be reconciled with their faith and begin receiving the Sacraments again, this would be a necessary step. At this time, as they are not married in the Catholic faith, they are considered by the Church to be living in a state of mortal sin; they can attend Mass but cannot receive any Sacraments. Perhaps it is that they wish to rectify this and be reconciled to the Church by marrying religiously as well as civilly. I hope that's the motivation.

Al-bina, I believe that the Count's eldest son (Count of Claremont) who is disabled, will inherit the title of Count of Paris, with the second son set to be "regent" to his older brother As the older son (b 1961) has not and presumably will not marry and have issue, it will be the second son, the Duke of Vendôme, who will eventually inherit the title.

 

[Al_bina]

In my personal opinion ...

It does not matter how fair Count's of Paris desire to ease his conscience in terms of religious Sacraments ... it will never compensate a rather unpleasant taste his actions have left.

 

[amedea]

it would be intresting to know the motivation in law of the anulemente

 

[Sg1fan]

His motivations are simple. In the eyes of the Catholic Church he can not receive sacraments because he is living in sin by being married outside of the church. This has nothing to do with his children by his first wife (or his first wife).

Annulment simply means that there was some reason the first wedding was not valid (most likely because he was forced into it by his parents). It does not negate his children but simply says he did not make a commitment of his own free will in the eyes of the Church. The children are still his children and heirs, their status does not change.

My guess is that he wants to live his life in the Church, correctly and can not do so unless his civil marriage is recognized by the Church.

This does not leave any bad taste for me because he didn't do anything wrong. If this were a young woman forced into a marriage who was able to get out of the marriage years later would that be such an issue?

 

[amedea]

what I'm more curious about is exactly this: the reason that make the wedding not valid; so it seems to be because he was forced! thanks Sg

 

[Al_bina]

... [snipped] Annulment simply means that there was some reason the first wedding was not valid (most likely because he was forced into it by his parents). It does not negate his children but simply says he did not make a commitment of his own free will in the eyes of the Church. The children are still his children and heirs, their status does not change. ... [snipped]

I would like to know why it is pivotal for Count of Paris to make the first union invalid. Poor thing was coerced ... Anything else ..? I risk sounding chauvinist, but actions of Count of Paris are revolting. He wiped his feet over 27 years of the marriage and 5 children. This is not surprising ... many men do that ...

 

[MAfan]

what I'm more curious about is exactly this: the reason that make the wedding not valid; so it seems to be because he was forced! thanks Sg

That's really a good question, but I fear that we won't know the answer...Why the annulment after they have been married for 27 years, and had 5 children...

 

[pamk]

I wish that I could get my hands on the autobiography of Diane of Wurttembourg, the Count's sister. She is married to the Duchess of Monpensier's brother. I believe that she wrote that at her wedding, her brother (the present Count of Paris) kept saying how much in love and how happy he was with his wife - they had only been married for a few years.
Of course, things change over the years, and the Duchess has conducted herself in such a classy way. I, in no way, condone the Count's behavior. If his children even maintain any kind of civil relationship with their wayward father, he is indeed a very lucky man.

 

[NotAPretender]

Al-bina, I think that Sg1 explained it in better terms than I did. The Count (most likely) wishes to be reconciled into his faith.

The couple were divorced in 1984; they have been divorced and apart for 25 years, nearly as long as they were together. I think this is enough time for everyone to have come to terms and be at peace with this decision.

I do know this much: one does not obtain an annulment in a vacuum. And it doesn't happen quickly; most take years, so it's not as though the timing is really within the control of the petitioner or respondent. Each of the parties, both petitioner and respondent, are represented with their own Canon lawyer at the proceeding, and the presumption is that the marriage is valid. In fact, the marriage itself has its own Canon lawyer to defend it. If one party does not want the marriage to be annulled, it is very, very, very rarely annullled. One such case happened in the US and the wife, who did not want the annullment, appealed it all the way to the Vatican, which overturned the annullment and upheld the marriage. My point is that it is very likely that the Duchess of Monpensier was fully informed, participated in the process, and would have been asked for final consent.

An annullment, if granted, consists of two findings: a finding that the marriage was not valid; and permission or denial of permission to marry in the Church. I can tell you from personal experience that both parties in an annullment may or may not be granted permission to marry in the faith after an annullment. In mine, I was granted the right to marry in the Church. If the authorities find that one party committed grievous sin against the marriage, then that person is generally denied permission to marry after annullment. My point there being, if the findings of the investigation uncovered grievous sin against, say, the Count, he would be denied permission for a marriage. He has not been.

No one other than the full Tribunal sees the documents prepared for the "trial" or hearing. One does not have "right of discovery" as to what the other party has written about the marriage. And the findings of the Tribunal are not published. So we do not know what the grounds are that he (or she! it could have been the Duchess who initiated this!) suggested.

If I saw the Count throwing a big "hey, she's gone!" party, I'd be right there with you. But it seems as though this is a step he has taken after a very long (25 year) consideration. And that the Duchess, by not appealing the decision, seems to be in concurrence.

I hope it brings them the peace that it can.

 

[Al_bina]

My opinion on the situation is likely to remain categorical.

Thanks for explanations! Still I find Count's of Paris actions unacceptable. Let him be reconciled into his faith. From I have heard, Duchess is far more dignified than her husband. The wife's concurrence does not make this situation less uglier/unpleasant/bitter for me. Someone needs to preserve face in this situation.

 

[NotAPretender]

I'm trying to find out a bit more about the Duchess - there really isn't a lot! I think I may have to go dig out some publications from the time of her marriage to see a background.

 

[Zonk]

Well...I normally don't follow French royalty and I have to tell you. What a mess!
And what was the deal with the Comte's father? Disinheirting everyone?

 

[Benjamin]

And what was the deal with the Comte's father? Disinheirting everyone?

The late Comte de Paris ruled that the marriages of two of his sons, Michel and Thibaut, were unequal so he handed them 'lesser' titles. Thus, the children of the Comte d'Erveux and Comte de la Marche were initially without dynastic rights & titles.

The Comte de Paris was understandably unhappy when the (then) Comte de Clermont left his wife, which was in the mid to late 70s. The Comte de Paris made sure that the Comtesse de Clermont and her children were taken care of. After the Comte de Clermont divorced Marie-Therese in 1984, the Comte de Paris disinherited his eldest son and stated that his grandson Prince Jean would be the heir. The Comte de Paris demoted his son to the title of Comte de Mortain. It was also at this time that Marie-Therese was named Duchesse de Montpensier.

However, father and son reconciled in 1990 or 1991 (Point de Vue covered it) and Michaela received the title Princesse de Joinville from her father-in-law and the younger Henri was restored to his place in the succession.

 

[Odette]

I can understand why some people are upset.
It does not matter IMHO who forced who to marry. He did and fathered 5 children, one being his heir who is getting married himself in about 6 weeks. BTW Is he going to that wedding? It would be tense to say the least.

 

[Odette]

I wish that I could get my hands on the autobiography of Diane of Wurttembourg...

Amazon sells it. You need to order it from France. She tells a lot about a lot of things. I bought it but did not read it yet.

 

[rominet09]

I think that for years his children would have nothing to do with him.... the situation has changed obviously but the relationships are tense. Of course it is only things I read...I only repeat what I read

 

[Marengo]

Just as a general remark, many here and on French message boards express sympathy for the duchess of Montpensier but we do not know what her position in this is. It is very well possible that she agreed with the anulment (it is more diffucult to obtain if she did not) and she and her former husband seemed friendly enough at the wedding of their son, they were even seated next to each other!

 

[rominet09]

The Duchess is a very sincere and devoted catholic.... knowing that her marriage was annulled so didn't exist in the eyes of the Church must be devastating for her !

 

[Marengo]

Well, isn't an anulment usually preferable for a devout catholic than just a divorce, since in the case of a divorce the church still considers you married anyway? The count and duchess have been divorced for about 25 years now, which is a long time and I suppose the biggest shock about it was in the 1984, when they actually divorced.

 

[NotAPretender]

The Duchess is a very sincere and devoted catholic.... knowing that her marriage was annulled so didn't exist in the eyes of the Church must be devastating for her !

I can't speak for the Duchess directly, but can only convey my own experience.

Because annullment says that at the time of the marriage, there were flaws that rendered the marriage invalid, anullment actually came as a tremendous relief to me. What it meant was that, no matter what I did, no matter what course of action I took or did not take, the marriage was never there. There was nothing to try to "save," no course of action that would have rendered it valid. That although I entered into the marriage in good faith, the marriage simply did not exist because of a serious flaw at its very outset. And so, it was a complete relief to know that no matter what I did, I could not "save" a marriage that did not exist.

We don't know the grounds for the annullment for the Duchess. I can tell you that the Church recognizes a number of grounds that render a person unable to give free consent, because of the lack of understanding of the nature of marriage. For instance - and may I say in advance that I am not saying this in the case of the Duchess - suppose a young woman had been severely sexually abused by her male parent? Would she truly be able to understand the nature of the marriage bond? Or would it take a long time and some very serious introspection to understand that? Could she give free consent to marriage when she had been taught an unnatural and unholy way of relationships between men and women?

Suppose a young man came from a home where philadering was rampant. Would that young man understand the nature of the marriage bond? Could he give consent to a marriage when he lacked the understanding that marriage means fidelity?

Suppose that either of the parties were alcoholic or had drug dependency issues. Under the law, they aren't even capable or legally allowed to drive an auto under the influence. Can they "defog" enough to understand the marriage bond? Or has their view of the world become so skewed that they cannot comprehend marriage? Are they looking for a savior to rescue them from the dependency?

We don't know.

What I can say is that, instead of devastation at the receiving of the annullment, I felt a sense of peace and freedom that I can't begin to express. It was as though a loving hand had placed itself on my head and said to me "My daughter, I know you tried. It was not in your power, to save something that never was. You are released."

Again, I wish this for the Duchess, and it is my sincere hope that the Count of Paris has sought this out for his spiritual peace as well.

In a graceless world, it can be an act of grace.

 

[rominet09]

Thank you very much for the explanation. It is very much appreciated.

 

[Al_bina]

Still ... it was not easy for Duchess of Montpensier to realise and accept that (1) she received a flawed sacrament; and (2)25 years of her life was just a mistake. This particular case vividly exemplifies how much humans can at times be very selfish, putting their needs before others’ and their own comfort first.