|
Luxembourg - legal texts - Hoelseth's Royal Corner
24 Aug 2006 11:07:35 -0700
alt.talk.royalty
previous
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
I have now added two legal texts to my Luxembourg page:
Loi du 10 juillet 1907 ayant pour objet de conferer force de loi au
Statut de famille de la Maison de Nassau du 16 avril 1907
(in French and German)
Arr=EAt=E9 grand-ducal du 3 f=E9vrier 2006 portant modification de
l'arr=EAt=E9 grand-ducal du 21 septembre 1995 concernant le nom de
famille et les titres des Membres de la Famille grand-ducale
(in French only)
mjcar...
|
Dag
Many thanks for these interesting and informative updates.
I was in Luxembourg last weekend and was impressed with the level of
affection there seems to be for the Grand Ducal family - plenty of
portraits in shops etc and only good words - or is that due to a
ruthless secret police ;-)
With respect to Prince Louis's intended marriage, is there an argument
that, although not accorded the styles of wifes of members of the
Luxembourg ruling family, his bride and the wife of his uncle Jean are
nevertheless entitled to be considered members of the House of
Bourbon-Parma, with the styles that go therewith?
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
For the record I did not write the above - Michael Andrews-Reading did.
Anyway, thanks for an interesting outline.
Dag T. Hoelseth
|
cbstewart3rd...
|
There are arguments both ways.
It appears that the Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume of Luxembourg has
never been recognized as a Prince of Bourbon-Parma by the Duke of
Parma. So it is hard to see how baby Gabriel de Nassau, son of his
younger brother Prince Louis, could be so entitled, particularly if the
language or import of the 1718 Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance was
preserved in subsequent treaties, disposing of Parma to "...the
first-born son of the said [Elisabetta Farnese] Queen of Spain, and
[her] descendants, being males, born in lawful matrimony, and in
default of them, the second-born, or other the younger sons of the said
Queen, if any shall be born, together with their male descendants, born
in lawful marriage, shall in like manner, succeed to all the provinces
aforesaid...". The phrase "born in lawful marriage" was indeed repeated
in the 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, per Francois Velde's
Nor are Guillaume and Louis princes as Parmesan dynasts, because their
father's 1981 marriage to Maria-Teresa Mestre has not been recognized
by the Duke. In apparent retaliation, Grand Duke Jean decreed on 28
July 1986 that he and his descendants (but not those of his late
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
How was this published?
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
I see. I should have remembered that reference myself, as I have the
text of the 1995 decree at my website,
|
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
I requested a copy from SCL (Service Central de L=E9gislation) of
Luxembourg last year, but it was not included among the several legal
texts I finally received.
|
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
I agree that Henk G usually does his homework, but I would still like
to see the decree itself. Not that I necessarily distrust either him or
the other sources/references you have mentioned.
[=2E..]
|
|
brother Prince Charles, nor his sisters) would henceforth discontinue
use of the Parmesan princely title (while conveniently retaining use
for cadets of the "Royal Highness" style traditionally attached to it).
The present Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume's title of "Prince of
Bourbon-Parma" is a Luxembourgeois grant of 18 December 2000 that was
not extended to his brother.
OTOH, I have never heard that Parma enacted a law requiring the Duke's
authorization for dynastic marriage, nor anything regulating their
titles. But it's been stated here that the Bourbon-Parma's Head of
House has, in exile, previously exercised authority over dynastic
marriages without apparent dispute from cadets. See:
|
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
I am not sure if the members of the House of Nassau consider themselves
as members of de Bourbon de Parme anylonger (although they still carry
Parmesan (sp?) titles, cf. the decree of 18 Dec 2000 which established
the Hereditary Grand Duke title for Guillaume (b. 1981)). Prince Jean
is as far as I know divorced, so I don't think his wife carries the
title Countess of Nassau anylonger (while the children have been
upgraded to princely status).
cbstewart3rd...
|
Yes, all of the issue of other non-dynastic marriages in the Luxembourg
dynasty have been de-morganatized by Grand Duke Henri -- at least as
regards titles: I have seen nothing restoring them to the line of
Dag T. Hoelseth...
succession however, and the 27 November 2004 decree conferring princely
titles upon them is silent on that point.
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
The court confirmed to me in a letter to me that the persons in qustion
were not restored to the line of succession.
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
E-mail by Lisi Haas, Press officer, the Grand Ducal Court, 28 April
2005.
|
|
The circumstances of Prince Louis, his wife-to-be Tessy Antony, and
their son Gabriel are uncannily similar to the former situation of
Prince Jean, H=E9l=E8ne Vestur and their first daughter, Marie-Gabrielle:
Each couple surprised the grandducal parents with a child born
out-of-wedlock, following which the cadet Prince renounces his claim to
the throne, then the couple weds -- legitimizing the child (at least
for non-dynastic purposes), but the reigning Grand Duke refuses to
raise his son's issue to princely rank.
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
It will be interesting to see how Prince Louis's renunciation will be
formalized. Will there be a decree (I haven't found such for Prince
Jean), or is it possible that the succession rights will be lost
automatically because the Grand Duke does not give consent to the
marriage (in a dynastic sense, but approves the marriage as a father)?
Dag T. Hoelseth...
|
The article 8 of the "Statut familial de la Maison de Nassau du 13
d=E9cembre 1822", which modified the 1783 Erbvereinung, explicitly
forbids the princes and princesses to marry without consent. The
members of the house have to follow all the articles of the said law.
Is it not a bit strange to include such a passage if it has no
consequences?
cbstewart3rd...
|
Agreed. And I don't know that it has no consequences, since I was
unaware of the 1822 amendment until you cited it here. But there are at
least three relevant difficulties with application of that law:
1=2E Language: It does not specify dynastic forfeiture as a consequence
of violation. I normally interpret legal texts that categorically state
"no member of the reigning dynasty may marry without permission" as
defining any such marriage to be without legal effects for purposes of
that law. But some others treat such injunctions as advisory. If the
latter interpretation is applicable, some additional legal language or
act is necessary to deprive dynasts of succession rights even when they
violate this law. Can you quote the exact language used?
2=2E Validity: Both the 1815 Treaty of Vienna and the 1848 Luxembourgeois
constitution state that the grand-duchy's succession shall be governed
by the 1783 Erbverein -- not by the 1783 Erbverein "as subsequently
amended by Luxembourgeois law". If all agnates consented to the 1822
modification, I think German princely law, to which Luxembourg was
subject as a member of the German Confederation, would accept it as
binding if no higher law was applicable. But I don't think that trumps
the treaty or the constitution.
3=2E Practice: Luxembourg's princes (specifically Jean and Robert) do not
appear to have forfeited their succession rights pursuant to this law.
Jean renounced his succession rights prior to marriage. Robert has
never done so and, presumably, still has those rights. But that
observation is based on remote and slim evidence (i.e. upon the fact
that Robert's wife and children were Count(ess) de Nassau until the
2004 upgrading. But as is now clear, titles and succession rights in
the Luxembourg dynasty are not in synch). Does the wording of the press
officer's e-mail, or other communications, explicitly or implicitly
clarify whether Robert is deemed to retain succession rights? As you
say, it will be very interesting to see how Louis's renunciation is
worded and timed.
cbstewart3rd...
|
Thus far, I haven't been able to locate a copy of Prince Louis's
renunciation pursuant to his recent marriage. I thought that by now it
would have been declared and published. Without it, his children still
have no succession rights, being born of an unapproved marriage. But
Louis could eventually inherit the throne and unilaterally
de-morganatize them. Perhaps the Grand Duke is already relenting?
Charles Stewart
|
There is one more example worth considering the 1868 marriage while in
exile of Prince Nikolaus of Nassau (1832-1905) to Natalia Aleksandrovna
Pushkina. The marriage was morganatic and its issue, still extant, were
eventually confirmed as ineligible to succeed in Luxembourg. But
everything I've read intimates that Prince Nikolaus himself was deemed
fully eligible for the crown despite his marriage. It's possible that
his half-brother the ex-Duke Wilhelm authorized Nikolaus to marry
morganatically, thereby conforming to the 1822 house law. But I doubt
it because Nikolaus was residing in Russia at the time as a de facto
subject of the Emperor. IIRC the couple eloped to England precisely
because there was no hope of getting their marriage approved in St
Petersburg. If Nikolaus wed without approval yet retained his
succession rights in Luxembourg, there is precedent for Jean, Robert
and Louis doing so as well.
Charles Stewart
edespalais...
|
Actually the only thread around worth to be read.
The interpretation of Mr Stewart is readable.
The Erbverein excludes of course the descendants of a prince, who
needed to hold consent to marry; but not the prince himself (after all
his wife could happily die, and he therefore egaly happily remarry for
example the daughter of the Tsar, or to be modern the daughter of the
emperor of China, the king of Tonga, even a daughter of the present
king of .., situated in Southern part of Africa).
The marriage of the present ruling prince was certainly not up to the
imagination of the text, the authors of the Erbverein of 17.., it is
also known that the parents of the prince were extremely unhappy with
the bride not yet to be. His wife, their offspring can be characterized
to be just Gammelfleisch, at least for the eye (but that seems also
elsewhere to be the rule), but who can use his eyes with taste!
edespalais...
edespalais...
|
|
Dag T. Hoelseth
|
Time will show...
Dag T. Hoelseth
|
At that point the analogy stops -- for now -- because apparently Grand
Duke Henri -- sympathetic enough to his brother's defiance of their
father to de-morganatize his nephews, is not so indulgent of his son's
behavior as to de-morganatize his own grandson. Thus, Luxembourg, which
had been the last European monarchy in which a dynast's wife and
children had no automatic right to share his title absent the
Sovereign's consent, has resumed that status -- or will when the (very)
young couple marry next month. We'll see how long it is before Henri
relents, or if history repeats itself completely, leaving it to Henri's
heir to de-morganatize Tessy and Gabriel someday.
Charles Stewart
|
Dag T. Hoelseth
|
Regards, Michael
|
|
|
