Monaco's succession issues

[An Ard Ri]

Yes Princess Antoinette, Baroness of Massy was the older sister of Prince Rainier and along with her children were included in the line of succession to the Monegasque Throne until the death of her brother, Prince Rainier III.

Line of succession to the Monegasque throne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_Monegasque_throne

 

[Spheno]

I didn't know that. But wasn't Antoinette' Rainiers sister? so why were her children excluded?

Her children were excluded after Rainier's death. Now they are cousins (not nephews or nieces) of the ruling Prince.

 

[Denville]

sorry I was confused cos Soemone said after Albert's death. it was after her brother Rainier died in 200? soemthign?

 

[An Ard Ri]

Rainier III, Prince of Monaco died on the 6th of April 2005 ,following his death Princess Antoinette and her children lost their place in the line of succession.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, they will lost their places in the line of succession after Albert's death.

Only descendants of the ruling Prince(ss), his/her siblings and siblings' descendants are in the line.

That is incidentally the same rule, I think, that is currently used in the Kingdom of Norway substituting "the ruling Prince/Princess" by "the ruling King/Queen".

 

[duke of poliganc]

afaik they can still inherit the throne if the reigning monarch dosn't leave a heir

 

[Pranter]

I can't remember...but if Albert had not had children...wouldn't his heir have been his nephew Andrea?


LaRae

 

[duke of poliganc]

no , princess caroline would had succeed him to the throne if she is still alive then her children would inherit the throne

 

[titiromi]

So if Prince Albert dies (not wishing it) and Prince Jacques is still very young , not married and childless, would there be only one person into the line of succession (The princess Gabriella) ?

 

[Lee-Z]

Purely theoretical, but should P.Albert and P.Charlene divorce and P.Albert remarry the mother of his daughter Jazmin (or his son's mother for that matter).... would Jazmin then be elligible to be in the line of succession?

 

[Ish]

The succession now is limited to the legitimate/legitimatized descendants of Rainier III - or Albert, Caroline, Stephanie, and their descendants (with some exceptions).

If Albert were to die, then the succession would become his legitimate/legitimatized descendants - or Jacques and Gabriella. Everyone else in the succession would be removed from the succession.

Purely theoretical, but should P.Albert and P.Charlene divorce and P.Albert remarry the mother of his daughter Jazmin (or his son's mother for that matter).... would Jazmin then be elligible to be in the line of succession?

Jazmin is ineligible because of the nature of the affair that lead to her conception - her mother was still married to another man, so she can't be legitimatized under Monegasque law.

If Albert were to marry Alexandre's mother, though, not only would Alexandre be in the line of succession but he would also be above Jacques and Gabriella (as he's male and older).

 

[melina premiere]

Some persons are taking their wishes for the reality as we are saying in my country.

Albert is married with Charlene and the heredditary prince is Jacques and the princess Gabriella is the spare and second in linie.

Albert is not fool

 

[burbankstorylady]

THe law is still that if the Monarch has not got an heir, the state woudl be annexed to France?

That WAS true as a condition of a treaty that was signed after the first world war. However, a new treaty was formed between France and Monaco in 2002: It says that even if there are no heirs to the throne when the reigning Prince dies, Monaco remains a sovereign nation.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Yes, exactly. One of the many achievements of his late Serene Highness Rainier III. Probably the most clever and skilled ruler in the Principality's very long history.

 

[burbankstorylady]

Yes, exactly. One of the many achievements of his late Serene Highness Rainier III. Probably the most clever and skilled ruler in the Principality's very long history.

Yes! Monaco's sovereignty was everything to him. As long as he could ensure that ... Just that alone is reason to call him a great monarch, but of course there are many reasons.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don’t know which thread to post this. I saw from another blog a new picture of Prince Albert with Nichole Coste. Just wondering-on a hypothetical divorce, if PA marries Nicole would it mean that Alexandre will have precedence over Jacques at the throne?

Feel free to transfer this question to the correct thread.

There seems to be no legislation which concretely addresses this potential situation. As in other European countries, article 226 of the Monegasque civil code (which can be read on Légimonaco) legitimates children upon their parents marrying, so I suppose that under the present law, he would.

But Britain, where children under civil law are also legitimated upon their parents marrying, has enacted legislation which declares that legitimation will not affect the succession to the crown or peerages. In a hypothetical situation where Prince Albert wished to divorce his wife and marry the mother of one of his older children, I think it is likely that he would follow Britain's example and make changes to the house law and/or constitution to clarify that legitimated children are excluded from the succession to the crown, which would preserve the expectations of Jacques and Gabriella.

Well I think Alexandre won’t be legitimate because Albert would need to seek for the religious annulment of his marriage to Charlène. The same thing happened to the Casiraghi, they weren’t born legitimate and were excluded from the succession until the religious annulment of their mother’s marriage to Philippe Junot.

Can you refer me to the article of the civil code which makes civil legitimacy dependent on religious legitimacy?

 

[titiromi]

There seems to be no legislation which concretely addresses this potential situation. As in other European countries, article 226 of the Monegasque civil code (which can be read on Légimonaco) legitimates children upon their parents marrying, so I suppose that under the present law, he would.

But Britain, where children under civil law are also legitimated upon their parents marrying, has enacted legislation which declares that legitimation will not affect the succession to the crown or peerages. In a hypothetical situation where Prince Albert wished to divorce his wife and marry the mother of one of his older children, I think it is likely that he would follow Britain's example and make changes to the house law and/or constitution to clarify that legitimated children are excluded from the succession to the crown, which would preserve the expectations of Jacques and Gabriella.





Can you refer me to the article of the civil code which makes civil legitimacy dependent on religious legitimacy?

I don’t think the civil code would rule on the succession of the princily family anyway, as per article 9 of the Constitution, Catholicism is the state religion and catholicism doesn’t recognise children born from civilly married couple when one of them is still religiously married to an other.

The constitution only refers to legitimacy (article 10) but doesn’t explain if the legitimacy must be civil or religious.

According to this french article from the serious journal «*Le parisien*»
«*Caroline married for a second time civilly with the entrepreneur Stefano Casiraghi in 1983 at the Palais de Monaco. Together they have three children, Andrea, Charlotte and Pierre. Their father died brutally in a motorboating accident in 1990. These children from this second marriage were recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the Church by Pope John Paul II in 1993.*»

https://www.google.fr/amp/www.lepar...aissances-hors-mariage-18-12-2013-3420819.php

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don’t think the civil code would rule on the succession of the princily family anyway, as per article 9 of the Constitution, Catholicism is the state religion and catholicism doesn’t recognise children born from civilly married couple when one of them is still religiously married to an other.

The constitution only refers to legitimacy (article 10) but doesn’t explain if the legitimacy must be civil or religious.

According to this french article from the serious journal «*Le parisien*»
«*Caroline married for a second time civilly with the entrepreneur Stefano Casiraghi in 1983 at the Palais de Monaco. Together they have three children, Andrea, Charlotte and Pierre. Their father died brutally in a motorboating accident in 1990. These children from this second marriage were recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the Church by Pope John Paul II in 1993.*»

https://www.google.fr/amp/www.lepar...aissances-hors-mariage-18-12-2013-3420819.php

Thank you very much!

I think, however, that the recognition under article 226 of the civil code of a different basis for legitimacy than that used by the Catholic Church signals that the laws of Monaco do not necessarily conform to the laws of the Catholic Church, in spite of article 9 of the constitution. An even clearer demonstration is the recognition of civil marriage and divorce under the civil laws of Monaco, but not in the eyes of the church.

Just to move some posts which are applicable to the subject of this thread:

The house laws state:

Article 24.

Without prejudice to the provisions of article 21, the marriage of a member of the Sovereign Family contracted without the authorization of the Reigning Prince excludes the one who contracted the marriage from the order of succession as well as his or her descendants.

[…]

The authorization according to the first paragraph is issued by Sovereign Decision.

Ordonnance Souveraine n° 5.344 du 2 juin 2015 portant statuts de la Famille Souveraine / Journal 8228 / Année 2015 / Journaux / Accueil - Journal de Monaco​

I cannot find an ordinance in the Journal de Monaco or a public statement suggesting that a Sovereign Decision was issued ahead of the marriages of the Casiraghis or Louis Ducruet to allow them to remain in the order of succession. Is anybody aware of one?

Albert said in the book about him that his nephews did not ask him is they could marry, He said they asked him advices not else,
In the constitution if a member of the officialy family would marry without the permission of the sovereign, he would lost his place in the line of sucession

I presume the book is the one that was released for the Prince's 60th birthday?

Yes, it is the last book about the prince Albert for his 60th anniversary

For Andréa, Caroline was ok for a wedding, Albert had no reasons to say no
For Pierre he married with Beatrice , he is 8th in the line of sucession, no chance to be a future ruler
For Charlotte, she is 11th in the line of sucession, no Reason to say no, when she was with gad El Maleh, he was received at the palace with the family, he was present when the twins were presented to the people of Monaco , in january 2015

From the posts above I am still not clear on whether a Sovereign Decision granting authorization under the house law was issued or not. The website of the Monegasque monarchy provides no clarification about whether the Casiraghis and Louis Ducruet remain in the line of succession or not.

 

[melina premiere]

Jacques is officially the hereditary prince of Monaco, his parents are married , Gabriella is the second in the line of sucession

For Alexandre and Jazmin Grace, they have no rights of sucession , their parents were no married as Raphael son of Charlotte Casiraghi and Camille Gottlieb, their parents are not married

Andrea, Charlotte Pierre casiraghi, Louis Ducruet and Pauline are still in the line of sucession, If their parents had a civil wedding , the children are legitimate

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Andrea, Charlotte Pierre casiraghi, Louis Ducruet and Pauline are still in the line of sucession, If their parents had a civil wedding , the children are legitimate

Andrea, Charlotte and Pierre Casiraghi, and Louis Ducruet, are married themselves. Under Article 24 of the Grimaldi house law, if their marriages were contracted without the legal authorization of the Reigning Prince, then they (and their descendants) will have been excluded by their marriages from the line of succession. (Naturally, exclusion from the line of succession does not affect legitimacy.)

Art. 24.

Sans préjudice des dispositions de l’article 21, le mariage d’un membre de la Famille Souveraine contracté sans l’autorisation du Prince Régnant emporte exclusion de l’ordre successoral, tant pour celui qui a contracté ce mariage que pour ses descendants.

Néanmoins, en cas de dissolution du mariage et en l’absence d’enfant issu de ce dernier, l’héritier qui l’a contracté recouvre sa place dans l’ordre successoral si aucune succession n’est intervenue à la date où la dissolution est devenue définitive.

L’autorisation prescrite en vertu du premier alinéa est délivrée par Décision Souveraine.​

Translation:

Art. 24.

Without prejudice to the provisions of article 21, the marriage of a member of the Sovereign Family contracted without the authorization of the Reigning Prince excludes the one who contracted the marriage from the order of succession as well as his or her descendants.

[…]

The authorization according to the first paragraph is issued by Sovereign Decision.​

Ordonnance Souveraine n° 5.344 du 2 juin 2015 portant statuts de la Famille Souveraine / Journal 8228 / Année 2015 / Journaux / Accueil - Journal de Monaco


As I said, I cannot find an ordinance in the Journal de Monaco or a public statement suggesting that a Sovereign Decision was issued.

 

[melina premiere]

I think there was no need to make a statement about the wedding of Andrea, Pierre, Louis and Charlotte, they were not the children of the sovereign, Albert said yes to the weddings , they married and they are still on the line of the sucession, Andrea is4th on the line of sucession, Pierre is 8th on the line of sucession, Charlotte is 11th on the line of sucession , Louis is 15th on the line of sucession

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Can you please provide the source confirming that a Sovereign Decision was issued? I cannot find it in the Journal de Monaco, the official website of the monarchy, or in the press.

 

[melina premiere]

No need to have an official statement, they do not need to have an starement about their wedding, they are not the heirs and not the direct children of the sovereign, Albert was present to their wedding and they had a civil wedding in the palace apart Louis who married in the mayor house of Monaco.

Albert said warm words about the wifes of Andrea, Pierre , and Louis

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No need to have an official statement, they do not need to have an starement about their wedding, they are not the heirs and not the direct children of the sovereign, Albert was present to their wedding and they had a civil wedding in the palace apart Louis who married in the mayor house of Monaco.

Albert said warm words about the wifes of Andrea, Pierre , and Louis

My questions dealt merely with their possible positions in the line of succession, as indicated in the topic of the thread. I am sure Prince Albert has warm feelings for his nephews and niece and their spouses.

If he wished for them to remain in the line of succession after marrying, he would have needed to issue a Sovereign Decision to legally authorize their marriages, per Article 24 of the house law (refer to the text and translation above: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f13/monacos-succession-issues-1813-33.html#post2277369). But if it is true that nothing "official" was issued, perhaps he indeed saw no need. The succession is secure with Albert's own legitimate children. That is what happened with Princes Pieter-Christiaan and Floris of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven in the Netherlands.

 

[Mbruno]

My questions dealt merely with their possible positions in the line of succession, as indicated in the topic of the thread. I am sure Prince Albert has warm feelings for his nephews and niece and their spouses.

If he wished for them to remain in the line of succession after marrying, he would have needed to issue a Sovereign Decision to legally authorize their marriages, per Article 24 of the house law (refer to the text and translation above: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f13/monacos-succession-issues-1813-33.html#post2277369). But if it is true that nothing "official" was issued, perhaps he indeed saw no need. The succession is secure with Albert's own legitimate children. That is what happened with Princes Pieter-Christiaan and Floris of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven in the Netherlands.

Pieter-Christian and Floris are in a different category in my opinion as their marriages would actually have to be authorized by a special act of parliament passed by a joint session of the two chambers.

Basically, the princes did. not petition the government to introduce the necessary bill in the joint session. They were then excluded from the line of succession, which would have hsppened anyway when Willem-Alexander ascended the throne as the Netherlands limits the line of succession to relatives of the current monarch up to the third degree of consanguinity only. By the same reason, the children born of their respective marriages would never be in the line of succession either even when Beatrix was still queen since they would be related to her furthermore than the third degree.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Under Monaco law, if a child is born out of wedlock but their parents marry, they enter the line of succession. We see that with Andrea's and Charlotte's younger son.

Under which law? If the argument is that legitimation under the Civil Code results in succession rights to the throne, then the same argument should prevail for almost all the monarchies of Europe (most have abolished the concept of legitimacy altogether under civil law) and not only Monaco as many royal watchers claim.

As far as I have heard the Palace of Monaco has not confirmed their inclusion in the line of succession. Under the house law, Andreas and Charlotte are themselves excluded from the line of succession unless they married with the formal written permission of the Prince of Monaco.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Note: The following comment relates to the interview with Prince Albert II that was discussed in this thread, a few posts before this one.

If Albert said his nephews didn't ask his permission to marry it depends on the context as to whether that was in any way meaningful. He might have said they didn't ask because they didn't need to. Pierre at least must have had his approval as his civil wedding took place in the throne room.

Yes, it would be best if someone would quote or post the actual interview so that we can see his precise wording and the context.

However, the fact that Prince Albert II personally celebrated the marriages of his sister's children and gave them "royal weddings" at the palace does not by itself prove that he issued his legal approval. For example, the Dutch Parliament (in the Netherlands, it is Parliament and not the monarch that legally must approve royal marriages) certainly wasn't unhappy with Prince Pieter-Christiaan and Prince Floris's marriages (the wives were wholly uncontroversial), and I am sure the Dutch MPs congratulated them. Nonetheless, Parliament did not legally approve their marriages, because the princes were simply not considered important enough to keep in the line of succession. They therefore lost their place in line to the crown - but they still had televised royal weddings in the Netherlands.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would like to address a comment made in a locked thread which argued that the sovereign family's House Laws are unconstitutional and therefore invalid because they are not included in the Constitution itself. (More specifically, the comment argued that the rule in Article 24 of the House Law, which excludes any person who marries without the Sovereign Prince's consent from succeeding to the Monegasque throne, is unconstitutional and invalid.)

This is not the case; the House Laws are constitutional. The Constitution not only refers to the House Laws four times, but the Constitution explicitly gives the House Laws the authority to establish rules for the succession to the throne, regencies, and the crown properties.

The current constitution of Monaco:
https://www.gouv.mc/Gouvernement-et-Institutions/Les-Institutions/La-Constitution-de-la-Principaute

An English translation:
https://en.gouv.mc/Government-Institutions/Institutions/Constitution-of-the-Principality


Quoting the Constitution:

Art. 10. (amended by Law n°1.249 of April 2nd, 2002) - The succession to the Throne, opened by death or abdication takes place by the direct and legitimate issue of the reigning prince, by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship.
In the absence of direct legitimate issue. the succession passes to the brothers and sisters of the reigning prince and their direct legitimate descendants, by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship.
If the heir, who would have acceded by virtue of the preceding paragraphs is deceased or renounced the Throne before the succession became open, the succession passes to His own direct legitimate descendants by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship.
If the application of the preceding paragraphs does not fill the vacancy of the Throne, the succession passes to a collateral heir appointed by the Crown Concil upon same advice of the Regency Council. The powers of the prince are temporarily held by the Regency Council.The Throne can only pass to a person holding Monegasque citizenship on the day the succession opens.
The procedures of application of this article are set, as needed, by the House Laws of the Sovereign Family promulgated by Sovereign ordinance.


Art.11. (amended by Law n°1.249 of April 2nd, 2002) - The Prince can exercise His sovereign powers if He has reached His adult hood fixed at the age of eighteen.
During the Prince's adolescence or in case the Prince is unable to exercise His functions, the organisation and conditions of exercise of the Regency are provided for by the House Laws of the Sovereign Family.

Art. 34. The Crown’s property is submitted to The Sovereignty's exercise.
It is unalienable and imprescriptible.
Its consistency and regime are determined by the House Laws at the Sovereign Family.
​

Thus, Prince Albert II formulating more detailed succession laws through his House Laws is permissible and legal according to the Constitution.


Furthermore, the Constitution not only acknowledges the House Laws, but it grants them a privileged status in which they are exempted from being debated by the Government:

Art. 46. (amended by Law n°1.249 of April 2nd, 2002) - Sovereign Ordinances, which are excluded from debate in the Government Council and presentation to the Minister of State, pertain to:
- The House Laws of the Sovereign Family and these of its members
- The affairs of the Direction of the Judicial Department
- The appointment of members of the Sovereign Household, the diplomatic and consular corps, the Minister of State, the Government Councillors and assimilated civil servants, the magistrates in the judiciary
- The issue of exequatur to consuls
- The dissolution of the National Council
- The granting of honor titles​

Finally, the Sovereign Family has continuously had House Laws, regulating succession, regency, property, marriage, etc., all published in the official Government journal of Monaco, since at least 1882.

https://journaldemonaco.gouv.mc/Journaux/1882/Journal-1258

From the pragmatic point of view: When no one has challenged the constitutionality of the House Laws in over 141 years, it probably does not have a chance of happening anytime soon.

 

[MARG]

I find myself in unfamiliar waters here. Can anyone explain to me why the Monaco succession is being argued so passionately as regards Prince Albert legal heir? I had assumed that with Albert and Charlene married and blessed with twins, an immediate heir and spare, that any quibbling about who was in the line of succession would be merely academic and not a still a cause of considerable quibbling.

 

[sophie25]

I find myself in unfamiliar waters here. Can anyone explain to me why the Monaco succession is being argued so passionately as regards Prince Albert legal heir? I had assumed that with Albert and Charlene married and blessed with twins, an immediate heir and spare, that any quibbling about who was in the line of succession would be merely academic and not a still a cause of considerable quibbling.

You read my mind, this conversation seems to have reared it's head again since Alexandre turned 18.