Blog Real
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 13,986
- City
- Lisboa
- Country
- Portugal
When Princess Alexandra married your husband will have the title of Prince?
Last edited:
When Princess Alexandra married your husband will have the title of Prince?
When Princess Alexandra married your husband will have the title of Prince?
Basically it is a decree issued by the Grand Duke.
What is an arrete grand-ducal?
Thank you MAfan! An arrete grand-ducal sounded extremely fancy.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are free to disagree with the grand duke ?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.)
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).
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; [...]
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 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.
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 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.
The issue was about what would happen nextI concur, as they would all be male-line descendants of the same daughter of Guillaume IV.
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.
Does anyone have the exact wording of the "Familienstatuten Unseres Hauses geschlossener Ehe" (in 1907 and later)?
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.
Unfortunately, I didn't understand what you meant here. Would you mind clarifying?
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')?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')?
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 ?