maria-olivia
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,336
- City
- Brussels
- Country
- Belgium
Few Nobiity in Luxembourg.
There is no nobility in Liechtenstein apart from the Princely family who later on became sovereignsThanks @Duc et Pair and @Countessmeout for the replies that help me understand the system in non King/Queen monarchies.
I have lots of books and reference links about royalty and nobility and none seem to mention the specifics on Monaco, Lichtenstein or Luxembourg in terms of if and how peer titles are granted.
Question on titles on non King/Queen European monarchies:
Can the Grand Duke grant nobility titles, either lifetime or hereditary?
And even if we are here in the Grand Ducal thread, can I ask the same question about the Princes of Monaco and Lichtenstein?
There is no nobility in Liechtenstein apart from the Princely family who later on became sovereigns
This changed in 1892 thanks to his uncle. Oscar's mother Sophia was a daughter of Wilhelm of Nassau, and sister of Adolph, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.Adolphe exercised his right to create hereditary peers and granted Prince Bernadotte as a hereditay peerage in Luxembourg. He was also given the title of Count of Wisborg.
Some initial thoughts on the major constitutional reform that just entered into force on July 1, 2023:
Although Princess Stephanie seems to be quite popular in Luxembourg the much publicised antics of her mother-in-law may have something to do with the authorities wanting to limit the influence of a mother or wife of the monarch.4) I am also surprised at the new requirement that the regent must be appointed from amongst the people in the line of succession to the crown. There is a tradition of monarchs' wives and widows serving as regent in Luxembourg and other European monarchies, and wouldn't Grand Duchess Maria Teresa or Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie be much better prepared to serve as regent than Prince Félix or Princess Alexandra, who have almost no experience as working royals?
I assume you mean 56 to 61. Article 56 seems key and refers to Grand Duke Adolphe as point of reference for those who are eligible for various positions (Grand Duke or his representative: either a Regent or Lieutenant-Representative).Some initial thoughts on the major constitutional reform that just entered into force on July 1, 2023:
1) Clearly, the most momentous change for the monarchy is that the rules of succession, abdication, deposal and regency in relation to the Crown are now embedded in the Constitution itself (articles 59-61), instead of leaving these matters to the Nassau family's house rules.
2) The transitional provision (article 132) is ambiguous, in my opinion, about whether the line of succession to the throne is restricted to Grand Duke Henri's descendants or only begins with Grand Duke Henri's descendants.
But either way, what has now been made clear is that the old semi-Salic succession law giving preference to the male line is no longer applicable to any part of the line of succession. Either there is no one in line to the throne after Prince Sébastien, or else Prince Sébastien is followed by his aunt Princess Marie-Astrid (not his uncle Prince Guillaume).
3) Very surprisingly, in contrast to the other hereditary monarchies of Europe, there is no rule to exclude descendants from an unapproved marriage. Since the new Constitution supersedes the house laws, this presumably means descendants of unapproved marriages are no longer barred from the throne.
However, there is a new requirement that successors must be born from a marriage. (Otherwise, the Civil Code regulation that a child born out of wedlock whose parents marry subsequently becomes legitimate would apply.)
In addition, there is another new rule stating that renunciations affect only the individual making the renunciation.
So although Grand Duke Henri's third son Prince Louis did not obtain his father's formal permission for his marriage in 2006 (which, under the Nassau house rules, would have eliminated the descendants of that marriage from the line of succession even if Louis had not renounced his own rights), and he renounced his and his descendants' right to the throne in 2006, his younger son Prince Noah is now in line to the throne under the new rules. His older son Prince Gabriel, who was born out of wedlock, is legitimate according to the Civil Code, but the new rule requiring birth in wedlock means he remains incapable of succeeding to the throne.
4) I am also surprised at the new requirement that the regent must be appointed from amongst the people in the line of succession to the crown. There is a tradition of monarchs' wives and widows serving as regent in Luxembourg and other European monarchies, and wouldn't Grand Duchess Maria Teresa or Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie be much better prepared to serve as regent than Prince Félix or Princess Alexandra, who have almost no experience as working royals?
The new and older versions of the Constitution can be found on Legilux.
It doesn't seem very well thought out. They might have been worried by the long time it took before Guillaume and Stéphanie's children were born and therefore would rather err on the side of caution but even if for now, the old rules still apply to Adolphe's descendants and the new rules to Henri, within a few generations the numbers could be enormous; because, if we only go one generation back and all of them would have been included the line of succession would be enormous.
In bold those who were in line until Friday (note: also Henri's cousin prince Charles and his two sons were (and are?) in line to the throne).
You are completely right. They wouldn't have had three grand duchesses in a row had daughters not been allowed to inherit.Just a clarification before I respond to the rest of your post (I appreciate your thoughts!): Daughters were always in line, even under the old rules.
The Nassau family pact as it was originally enacted in 1783 implemented semi-Salic, not Salic, succession. All males were ahead of all females in line to inherit, but the females were in line. If the Nassau male line became extinct, the last male head of house's oldest daughter (or his closest female relative in the house of Nassau, if he was childless) in the line of succession would automatically succeed him.
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/nassau.htm#42
42. Da übrigens auch der Fall möglich ist, welchen jedoch der Allerhöchste gnädiglich abwenden wolle, dass Unser ganzer Nassauischer Mannsstamm erlöschen möchte, so lassen Wir es in Ansehung derer jeweilen existirenden Töchter, bey dem von solchen geleisteten, auch künftig und zu ewigen Tagen zu leistenden unbedingten Verzicht, ohne Vorbehalt einiger Regredienterbschaft bewenden, verbinden Uns, setzen, ordnen und wollen demnach, dass in solchem Falle eine Tochter und zwar, wann deren mehrere vorhanden, die Erstgeborne, oder in deren Mangel die nächste Erbin des letzten Mannsstammes, mit Ausschluss aller andern entfernterer, zur Succession berufen seyn solle, es wäre dann, dass Wir oder Unsere Nachkommen auf solchen Fall anders übereingekommen wären, oder sonstige Vorsehung gethan hätten, als welches zu thun Wir Ihnen und Uns hiermit ausdrücklich vorbehalten, fort Unsere und Unserer Nachkommen respective Töchter und Erben zur Festhaltung einer solchen Vorsehung Kraft dieses verbunden haben wollen.
I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?
I realize the revision was done with more than one family in mind, but if Noah really has been reinstated, it seems like a bit of a shame, somehow.
I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?
When Prince Jean renounced his rights he stated that he did so in order to make it easier to pursue his business career. He did not mention his daughter (who few knew about) or his eventual marriage to Helene. This is the same "excuse" that Prince Louis used when he did the same before his marriage to Princess Tessy. I'll leave it to you to decide if you feel if it is the real reason behind those actions.
I agree with the others that Maria Teresa would definitely NOT be the better choice to serve as regent. Personally, I am fine with limiting the role of representing the grand duke (either as regent or lieutenant-representative to those in line to the throne) given that the position of grand duke itself is also limited to that group of people.
I also think that the regency ruile has something to do with Maria Teresa, but chances that she would become Regent are slim anyway, as Guillaume is well over 18. They only way she would have become Regent would be if there would be something with Henri, but i wonder if then not the Heir would be chosen as Regent given that he is adult
I believe that, under previous rules, the role of lieutenant-representative was already restricted to blood relatives of the Grand Duke, so the novelty is really in the extension of that restriction to the regency.
Having a difference between who acts formally on behalf of the Head of State as regent and who will actually care and look after an underage Grand Duke / Grand Duchess is maybe no bad thing.
Would it no be possible for a similar thing as happened in the UK to happen in Luxembourg and a specific act /legislation be created to make Stephanie regent if it was thought the best thing to do at the time? I haven't seen the exact wording of this new legislation so not sure.
Article 56
(1)The office of Head of State is hereditary in the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, in order of primogeniture and representation. Only children born of a marriage have the right to succeed.
(2)The person entitled to succeed may renounce it. This waiver takes the form of a written act which is irrevocable and whose effects apply only to the author.
When exceptional circumstances so require, the Chamber of Deputies may exclude one or more persons from the order of succession by a law adopted by a qualified majority.
(3) In the absence of a successor, the Chamber of Deputies shall meet no later than thirty days of the death or abdication of the Grand Duke with a view to appointing a new Head of State. The decision shall be adopted by qualified majority.
(4) The abdication of the Grand Duke requires the form of a written act which is irrevocable.
Article 132
The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.
An alternative explanation might be that the old remains continue to apply for other descendants, but these rules apply to Henri's descendants.
This would be consistent with the previous decision to start applying equal primogeniture to his descendants only.
I assume you mean 56 to 61.
In bold those who were in line until Friday (note: also Henri's cousin prince Charles and his two sons were (and are?) in line to the throne).
Thank you for your summary and thoughts. It seems a bit curious to me that the new constitution has removed any way of limiting the size of the Royal house that was available in the Nassau House Law and thereby goes against the trend we see in most other monarchies of Europe.
Has there been any reissued Line of Succession to know who was and was not affected?
What do you mean by "who was and was not affected"?
Noah, who would seem to now be in line, for one. Anyone else who was not in line and now is. Anyone who had their place changed. I assume there is no one who was removed.
I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?
I am fairly certain that was just uninformed speculation by people who were unaware that Luxembourg's Civil Code (just like that of Monaco, which for some reason many more people seem to be aware of) legitimates children upon the subsequent marriage of their parents.
The old and new Nassau house laws (at least those which are published online) did not exclude children who were born out of wedlock and legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage, as far as I can tell. (Edited to correct: The original wording of the 1907 bylaw did require birth from a marriage in conformity with the house rules, but this wording was removed in the 2012 revision.)
According to Luxarazzi, the publicly given reason for Louis's renunciation was to make it easier to pursue his business career. He apparently followed the example of his uncle Jean, who also officially renounced the throne for the sake of his business career, coincidentally not long after having a child out of wedlock.
There seems to be some confusion as to why first the 2012 amendment to the Nassau family pact and now Article 132 state that the change (to equal primogeniture) first applies to the descendants of GD Henri.
In my opinion the reason is simple. Both according to the family pact then and according to the constitution now the throne belongs to the descendants of GD Adolphe. So it was absolutely necessary, by one means or another, to make clear that the new rules have no retroactive effect, and the abdication of Jean I in favour of his eldest son (instead of his eldest child / eldest daughter) still remains legal without any doubt.
Article 132 states that Article 56 "shall for the first time apply" to the descendants of GD Henri. Now some people seem to assume that this "shall for the first time apply" means that for others in the line of succession, the old semi-salic law would still apply. That would be illogical, in my opinion. It would mean, that a new constitution would cease to apply in favour of an old, already obsolete family pact, not because the constitution says so, but because the "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau. " in Article 132 is interpreted to mean "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, and after the extinction of that line, not apply at all".
Article 132 states: "shall for the first time apply". It would have been easy to formulate the article "The provisions of Article 56 shall only apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau", had that really been the intended effect.
This still leaves one important question unanswered, however. Should Article 132 be understood so that the line of Marie-Astrid was sidelined for all time to come as a result of Henri's accession, or is she together with her descendants now in line after Henri's children and grandchildren? The Nassau family pact applied to people who were considered part of the house of Nassau, so not necessary a princess who due to her marriage had become a memer of the Imperial house of Austria, if the old logic from the times of Holy Roman empire is followed. But that line of argument is now obsolete as well, since the new constitution doesn't limit the succession rights to the "House of Nassau" but to the descendants of GD Adolphe.
Based on the Nassau Family Pact which specifies that children of female members of the grand ducal family carry their father's surname.
Interesting question about the title. The reason for the claim is that Grand Duchess Charlotte was married to prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma. So, from that perspective her descendants in male-line in approved marriages would be prince(sse)s of Bourbon-Parma as well. The current head of the family is Carlos who fought in Dutch court against his own out-of-wedlock son to not get the princely title, so he surely would not approve of this use by Gabriel.I noticed that at the "speach" of Princes Gabriel and Noah at the "Parliamentary Society", which again, doesn't mean that they spoke in Parliament. This NGO just rented a room there for their event.
There was a cardboard name in front of them saying "Prince Gabriel of Nassau, prince of Bourbon Parma".
This is the first time that I saw any member of GDC to use the "Bourbon Parma" title. Maybe someone who has better knowledge about titles if that is a validate title to use for members of the Lux royal family. And if so, I wonder why other family members aren't using it.
IIRC, at the time, Carlos' father did not approve Henri's marriage, so Henri's descendants are not entitled to the BP title, though Henri likes to claim it.Interesting question about the title. The reason for the claim is that Grand Duchess Charlotte was married to prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma. So, from that perspective her descendants in male-line in approved marriages would be prince(sse)s of Bourbon-Parma as well. The current head of the family is Carlos who fought in Dutch court against his own out-of-wedlock son to not get the princely title, so he surely would not approve of this use by Gabriel.
So, unless the title was also incorporated in the Luxembourgian nobility as a separate title which regulates that out-of-wedlock children also have a right to this title, it seems unlikely that he has a right to this title. He was only granted the title 'prince of Nassau' at some point by his grandfather.