Discussion:
Luxembourg - change in succession
(too old to reply)
Yannis
2004-07-28 08:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Luxembourgish media report today that during his meeting with the
Grand Duke yesterday, the prime minister designate, J.C. Juncker,
pointed out that Luxembourg succession should change in order to allow
first-born females to inherit the throne (as is already the case in
Sweden, Belgium etc.). Speaking to the press afterwards, Juncker said
that it was up to the GD to decide how it was most appropriate to do
that, i.e. by changing the "Nassauischer Erbverein" (the Nassau Family
Pact) or by changing the Constitution. It is reported that Luxembourg
will in future withdraw its reservations on international conventions
on the equality of men and women, concerning succession to the throne
.

Anyone who can read German can consult the electronic edition of the
Luxemburger Wort http://www.wort.lu/ title of piece "Änderungen in
Thronfolge vorgesehen "

Apparently, the decision was taken during coalition negotiations
between Juncker's governing CSV party (right-wing christian democrats)
and the socialists (LSAP) who are to enter the government to replace
the Liberals (Demokratesch Partei - DP) after the latters' debacle in
the 13 June 2004 general election.

In another interesting point, this being Luxembourg, the newspaper
reports that the new government will be sworn in at Berg castle (GD's
residence) rather than the palace in Luxembourg city, to avoid having
to cancel tourist visits to the palace on Saturday (day the government
will be sworn in)!
edespalais
2004-07-28 08:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yannis
Luxembourgish media report today that during his meeting with the
Grand Duke yesterday, the prime minister designate, J.C. Juncker,
pointed out that Luxembourg succession should change in order to allow
first-born females to inherit the throne (as is already the case in
Sweden, Belgium etc.). Speaking to the press afterwards, Juncker said
that it was up to the GD to decide how it was most appropriate to do
that, i.e. by changing the "Nassauischer Erbverein" (the Nassau Family
Pact) or by changing the Constitution. It is reported that Luxembourg
will in future withdraw its reservations on international conventions
on the equality of men and women, concerning succession to the throne
.
Anyone who can read German can consult the electronic edition of the
Luxemburger Wort http://www.wort.lu/ title of piece "Änderungen in
Thronfolge vorgesehen "
Apparently, the decision was taken during coalition negotiations
between Juncker's governing CSV party (right-wing christian democrats)
and the socialists (LSAP) who are to enter the government to replace
the Liberals (Demokratesch Partei - DP) after the latters' debacle in
the 13 June 2004 general election.
In another interesting point, this being Luxembourg, the newspaper
reports that the new government will be sworn in at Berg castle (GD's
residence) rather than the palace in Luxembourg city, to avoid having
to cancel tourist visits to the palace on Saturday (day the government
will be sworn in)!
Erbverein, other important texts, published in French? Not an offical
language? Only the language of the Gd-family?
Francois R. Velde
2004-07-28 15:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yannis
Luxembourgish media report today that during his meeting with the
Grand Duke yesterday, the prime minister designate, J.C. Juncker,
pointed out that Luxembourg succession should change in order to allow
first-born females to inherit the throne (as is already the case in
Sweden, Belgium etc.). Speaking to the press afterwards, Juncker said
that it was up to the GD to decide how it was most appropriate to do
that, i.e. by changing the "Nassauischer Erbverein" (the Nassau Family
Pact) or by changing the Constitution.
Thanks for posting this. It will be interesting to see if they choose
to change a contract, the parties to which have all ceased to exist.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-07-28 16:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Yannis
Luxembourgish media report today that during his meeting with the
Grand Duke yesterday, the prime minister designate, J.C. Juncker,
pointed out that Luxembourg succession should change in order to allow
first-born females to inherit the throne (as is already the case in
Sweden, Belgium etc.). Speaking to the press afterwards, Juncker said
that it was up to the GD to decide how it was most appropriate to do
that, i.e. by changing the "Nassauischer Erbverein" (the Nassau Family
Pact) or by changing the Constitution.
Thanks for posting this. It will be interesting to see if they choose
to change a contract, the parties to which have all ceased to exist.
Surely it would be an easier - and better - path to modify the
Constitution's Article 3?

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/lu00000_.html
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
H Jacobs
2004-07-29 10:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Help me out on this please. After a change in Luxembourg, which countries are
left with the male first or even, only males, rule?

Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, will have first born,
independent of gender.

Is it correct that
Denmark, Monaco,Spain, and UK have male first
and
Liechtenstein male only?
Gidzmo
2004-07-29 19:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by H Jacobs
Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, will have first born,
independent of gender.

Belgium (Albert II) and Sweden (Carl XVI Gustaf) only changed their succession
rules quite recently. IIRC, Norway (Harald V) has just recently changed theirs
to allow for cognatic succession (from agnatic).

I'm not sure about the Netherlands, who have had Queens since the 1800s
(Wihelmina, Juliana, and Beatrix). Prince Willem-Alexander, when he becomes
King, will be the first King there in about a century.
Post by H Jacobs
Is it correct that Denmark, Monaco, Spain, and UK have male first and
Liechtenstein male only?
From http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm#p2-4

Denmark (primogeniture, sons first)
HRH Crown Prince Frederik
HRH Prince Joachim and his sons (Nikolai and Felix)

Monaco (primogeniture, sons first)
HSH Prince Albert of Monaco

HRH The Princess of Hanover [Caroline] and her children (Andrea, Pierre,
Charlotte, and Prss. Alexandra/Hanover )

HSH Prss Stephanie and all but one of her children (Louis and Pauline)

HSH Prss Antoinette (Rainier's sister)

Note: Stephanie's youngest daughter (Camille) is excluded.

Spain (primogeniture, sons first)
HRH Infante Felipe

HRH Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo and her children (Felipe and Victoria)

HRH Infanta Cristina of Spain, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca and her children
(Juan,
Pablo, and Miguel)

The Spanish succession then goes into the Two-Sicilies family from there.
Felipe's just married this year.

Liechtenstein (agnatic succession)
HSH Hereditary Prince Alois (b. 1968)
HSH Prince Joseph-Wenzel (b. 1995)
HSH Prince Georg (b. 1999)
HSH Prince Nikolaus Sebastian (b. 2000)

HSH Prince Maximilian (b. 1969)
HSH Prince Alfons (b. 2001)
HSH Prince Constantin (b. 1972)

HSH Prince Philipp (b. 1946)
HSH Prince Alexander (b. 1972)
HSH Prince Wenzeslaus (b. 1974)
HSH Prince Rudolf (b. 1975)

HSH Prince Nikolaus (b. 1947)
HSH Prince Josef-Emanuel (b. 1989)

The UK succession order is primogeniture (sons and their issue first, then
daughters and their issue, all in birth order). Thus:

a) Prince Charles and his sons (William and Henry)
b) Prince Andrew and his daughters (Beatrice and Eugenie)
c) Prince Edward and his daughter (Louise)
d) Prss Anne and her children (Peter and Zara)
e) Viscount Linley (Margaret's son) and his children (Charles and Margarita)
f) Lady Sarah (Margaret's sister) and her children (Samuel and Arthur).

From there, it goes into the Queen's cousins: the Gloucesters, the Kents, and
the Earls of Harewood. Then it goes into foreign Royals, starting with Norway.
See
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq for further information.
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-07-29 21:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by H Jacobs
Post by H Jacobs
Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, will have first born,
independent of gender.
Belgium (Albert II) and Sweden (Carl XVI Gustaf) only changed their succession
rules quite recently.
"Quite recently" is not very accurate in my opinion. The said countries
changed their succession laws in 1993 and 1980 (Act 1969:926) respectively.
Post by H Jacobs
IIRC, Norway (Harald V) has just recently changed theirs
to allow for cognatic succession (from agnatic).
Norway: 29 May 1990.
Post by H Jacobs
I'm not sure about the Netherlands,
1983.
Post by H Jacobs
who have had Queens since the 1800s
(Wihelmina, Juliana, and Beatrix). Prince Willem-Alexander, when he becomes
King, will be the first King there in about a century.
The information by H Jacobs is correct.
Post by H Jacobs
Post by H Jacobs
Is it correct that Denmark, Monaco, Spain, and UK have male first and
Liechtenstein male only?
The ATR FAQ says that Liechtenstein has Semi-Salic succession law. See the
text at http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/lieact19931026.html .

Luxembourg used to have a Semi-Salic succession law. See
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/nassau.htm for more information.
Maybe we could call it "Quarter-Salic"? :-)
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Louis Epstein
2004-07-31 19:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
Post by H Jacobs
Post by H Jacobs
Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, will have first born,
independent of gender.
Belgium (Albert II) and Sweden (Carl XVI Gustaf) only changed their
succession rules quite recently.
"Quite recently" is not very accurate in my opinion. The said countries
changed their succession laws in 1993 and 1980 (Act 1969:926) respectively.
Sweden being the first in the world to adopt this
form of succession (which I call Heirs-Numenorean
since Tolkien had described it before there was
anyone on Earth who used it).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Rico
2004-07-30 12:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Leichenstien has semi salic succession, for those who don't know this means
that when all male lines in all collateral branches become extinct the
closest female to the reigning prince becomes the regnant princess.

Norway is slightly different to the other countries that have absoulute
primogeniture (succession) in that the law did not apply to Princess Martha
Louise in the same way that it was applied to Crown Princess Victoria of
Sweden.

If Princess Martha Louise had other siblings she and her children would be
in the line of succession before them but after Crown Prince Hakkon and his
decendants.
Post by H Jacobs
Help me out on this please. After a change in Luxembourg, which countries are
left with the male first or even, only males, rule?
Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, will have first born,
independent of gender.
Is it correct that
Denmark, Monaco,Spain, and UK have male first
and
Liechtenstein male only?
Henk Goslings
2004-07-29 08:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Yannis
Luxembourgish media report today that during his meeting with the
Grand Duke yesterday, the prime minister designate, J.C. Juncker,
pointed out that Luxembourg succession should change in order to allow
first-born females to inherit the throne (as is already the case in
Sweden, Belgium etc.). Speaking to the press afterwards, Juncker said
that it was up to the GD to decide how it was most appropriate to do
that, i.e. by changing the "Nassauischer Erbverein" (the Nassau Family
Pact) or by changing the Constitution.
Thanks for posting this. It will be interesting to see if they choose
to change a contract, the parties to which have all ceased to exist.
The original parties of course don't exist anymore but their
successors do. So, as discussed also on the Benelux RMB, changing the
constitution seems the most practical way.
Francois R. Velde
2004-07-29 13:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
The original parties of course don't exist anymore but their
successors do.
The original parties were the male lines of the house of Nassau. The male lines
are all extinct. Nothing in the pact governs the succession after it has passed
through females.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Henk Goslings
2004-07-30 09:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
The original parties of course don't exist anymore but their
successors do.
The original parties were the male lines of the house of Nassau. The male lines
are all extinct. Nothing in the pact governs the succession after it has passed
through females.
That's correct by the letter of the agreement but one wonders if the
intent doesn't go further then that. One could argue that the pact was
an arrangement between the different branches of the House of Nassau,
which indeed at the time was governed by semi-salic succession. But
times have changed and the two surviving branches of the House have
both been effected by female succession and then why not either ammend
the old agreement ot make a new one. Currently the only element, as
far as I am aware, where both branches act together is the co-headship
of the House order but nothing could stop them from extending that I
would think. But for succession in a constitutional monarchy, the
final word should be with the people, i.e. parliament and therefor
changing the constitution looks the best way forward.
Uwe
2004-07-30 12:25:30 UTC
Permalink
[...snip...] But
times have changed and the two surviving branches of the House have
both been effected by female succession and then why not either ammend
the old agreement ot make a new one. Currently the only element, as
far as I am aware, where both branches act together is the co-headship
of the House order but nothing could stop them from extending that I
would think. [...snip...]
The two surviving branches of the House consist only of female members
of morganatic lines. There is nothing for them to succeed to.
The royal families of the Netherlands and Luxemburg do AFAIK only carry
Nassau as part of their House-name due to historical reasons.

With regards to the Ordre du Lion d’Or de la Maison de Nassau I read
today the article quoted below in which the auhtor states that the last
creation of a knight of that order by a dutch monarch dates from 1919. I
do not know whether Queen Beatrix has changed that practice in the last
22 years since that article has been published. If she did not, any
discussion regarding the co-headship of this House-order as sign of some
continuity of (rights attached to) the house of Nassau in the dutch
royal family seems to be even more theoretical than it already is.

Source: Jean SCHOOS, Der nassauische Hausorden vom Goldenen Löwen. Der
"große Orden" des ehemaligen Herzogtums Nassau, des Großherzogtums
Luxemburg und des Königreichs der Niederlande, in: Nassauische Annalen
(NassA) 93, 1982, S. 111
Henk Goslings
2004-07-30 18:51:25 UTC
Permalink
With regards to the Ordre du Lion d Or de la Maison de Nassau I read
today the article quoted below in which the auhtor states that the last
creation of a knight of that order by a dutch monarch dates from 1919. I
do not know whether Queen Beatrix has changed that practice in the last
22 years since that article has been published. If she did not, any
discussion regarding the co-headship of this House-order as sign of some
continuity of (rights attached to) the house of Nassau in the dutch
royal family seems to be even more theoretical than it already is.
Source: Jean SCHOOS, Der nassauische Hausorden vom Goldenen L wen. Der
"gro e Orden" des ehemaligen Herzogtums Nassau, des Gro herzogtums
Luxemburg und des K nigreichs der Niederlande, in: Nassauische Annalen
(NassA) 93, 1982, S. 111
Your source is dated 1982 and has therefor missed later developments.
Please refer to Jaarboek Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie, 44 (1990) pp
203-270 for the Dutch awards. In The Netherlands the order of
Orange-Nassau (1892) replaced in fuctionality in many ways the lost
Nassau House order. As the 1905 re-establishment of the order was
again a one class order, the multiclass House order of Orange was also
created in 1905 to allow a wider group of recipients. As a result of
the availibility of the other multiclass orders the Nassau House order
has been very sparingly been awarded in the Netherlands. Since 1905
indeed only 11 awards have been made, the most recent ones the 3 sons
of Beatrix (by birthright in 1980) and mr. Max van der Stoel in 1999
(of course also not in the above reference). Before that the last
Dutch award was general Snijders in 1919.

So my assertion that also the Orange-Nassau House acts, at least in
some ways, also today, as a Nassau branch remains.
Francois R. Velde
2004-07-30 20:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
So my assertion that also the Orange-Nassau House acts, at least in
some ways, also today, as a Nassau branch remains.
The Lippe-Biesterfeld and Bourbon-Parma individuals who are ruling in the Netherlands
and in Luxemburg respectively, may and do call themselves "Nassau" for sentimental
reasons, and there are plenty of examples of houses succeeding other houses but
keeping the name (Romanov, Grimaldi, in more convoluted ways Windsor and Austria).

But Uwe is correct that the house of Nassau as understood in the pact of 1783 does
not exist. Nor is provision made in the pact for its application to successors in
female lines of the branches of Orange and Weilburg. As the male lines became extinct
their estates reverted to surviving male lines until the last one became extinct, at
which point the eldest daughter or closest female relative of the last Nassau male
inherited everything, to the exclusion of any other female.

The sensible course of action is to rewrite article 3 of the constitution which is
currently vacuous, delete any reference to the pact of 1783 which is spent since
1912, repeal the (possibly unconstitutional) law of 1907 that has in fact governed
the succession in Luxemburg since 1912, and start afresh.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Charles Stewart
2004-07-31 05:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
The sensible course of action is to rewrite article 3 of the constitution which is
currently vacuous, delete any reference to the pact of 1783 which is spent since
1912, repeal the (possibly unconstitutional) law of 1907 that has in fact governed
the succession in Luxemburg since 1912, and start afresh.
Legalistically sensible, no doubt. If it also made political sense the
Luxembourg government, which raised the issue of the Erbverein and so
is presumably aware of its legal obsolescence (IIRC, it has also been
written about by Luxembourg commentators), ought surely to initiate
amendment. So why would the means of introducing female succession be
left to the Grand Duke to choose between amending the constitution or
amending the Erbverein?

If this option is real (since it could be merely a face-saving
dissumulation for the sake of the Grand Duke's dignity), there may be
other factors in the equation than legal efficiency. According to the
analysis of a Luxembourgeois legislative commission nearly seven years
ago that you quoted here
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b2eioj%24c0s%241%40e250.ripco.com>,
Grand Duke Jean had by then agreed in principle to gender-blind
succession. But it was explicitly acknowledged that implementation
thereof remained a matter of exercise of the grandducal prerogative.
The options now offered by the Prime Minister are consistent with that
interpretation.

It appears that an alteration of the Erbverein by unilateral act of
the sovereign is possible under the law of 1907. That would allow the
Grand Duke to control the process, at least nominally. And it might
make unnecessary putting the constitution on the debating floor where
it would be susceptible to other amendments -- a prospect that is also
said to retard modernization of succession laws in other monarchies.

My hunch is that Grand Duke Jean opposed the change, Grand Duke Henri
continues to stall on it, and the Prime Minister is now insisting that
the sovereign honor the old promise under threat of a parliamentary
showdown that might impose other changes on the dynasty. If that or
some other scenario is in play, amendment of the constitution at this
time is unlikely because the Grand Duke will yield (unless he's as
stubborn as his counterpart in Liechtenstein!) precisely to preserve
for himself and his heirs their wide prerogative in dynastic matters.
As we have seen in Spain, constitutions can be expected to be no more
coherent than there is political will to enact them.

Charles Stewart
Louis Epstein
2004-07-31 19:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Stewart
It appears that an alteration of the Erbverein by unilateral act of
the sovereign is possible under the law of 1907. That would allow the
Grand Duke to control the process, at least nominally. And it might
make unnecessary putting the constitution on the debating floor where
it would be susceptible to other amendments -- a prospect that is also
said to retard modernization of succession laws in other monarchies.
The extreme damage done to a system of succession
by its being possible for the rules to change is
I hope also a factor.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-01 05:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Stewart
According to the
analysis of a Luxembourgeois legislative commission nearly seven years
ago that you quoted here
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b2eioj%24c0s%241%40e250.ripco.com>,
Grand Duke Jean had by then agreed in principle to gender-blind
succession. But it was explicitly acknowledged that implementation
thereof remained a matter of exercise of the grandducal prerogative.
Actually, this was not a legislative commission, but a committee created
pursuant to article 17 of the convention on the elimination of discrimination
against women (CEDAW):
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/econvention.htm#article17
A report of that committee is described in this parliamentary document:
http://www.chd.lu/docs_st/pdf/4387-0.pdf
and the succession laws are discussed on page 11.

Luxemburg ratified the convention in 1988 with a reservation regarding its
succession law. In the committee's first report to the UN in December 1996, it
was stated that "It is conceivable, however, that at some future time the order
of succession to the throne may be altered at the instance of the sovereign,
and in that case Luxembourg would, of course, withdraw its reservation."
In the 2d report, dated April 1997, it was said that "the Grand Duke [...] gave
his consent in principle to the ministerial proposal to amend article 3 of the
Constitution concerning the hereditary transmission of the crown."
Post by Charles Stewart
It appears that an alteration of the Erbverein by unilateral act of
the sovereign is possible under the law of 1907. That would allow the
Grand Duke to control the process, at least nominally.
My hunch is that Grand Duke Jean opposed the change, Grand Duke Henri
continues to stall on it, and the Prime Minister is now insisting that
the sovereign honor the old promise under threat of a parliamentary
showdown that might impose other changes on the dynasty.
There is another element here, which is that revision of the constitution was a
complicated procedure until recently. Article 114 meant that only the articles
of the constitution designated as amendable by the previous parliament right
before dissolution can be amended by the current parliament. Article 3 had been
designated as amendable in 1994.

Moreover, on March 7, 1996, Mrs Jacobs, minister of family and women's affairs,
indicated that it was the grand-duke's desire to amend the succession law
(document C-1995-O-034-0003 at http://www.chd.lu/):

Mme Anne Brasseur (DP).- [...] D'Ratifikatioun vun der Konventioun vun New York
am Jor 1988 huet de Prinzip vun der nët-Diskriminéierung bei eis verankert. Déi
Reserv, déi fir Lëtzebuerg drasteet, bezitt sech op de Familjepakt vun der
Famill Nassau an iwwer d'Successioun op den Troun. An ech si ganz frou, dass
d'Fraëministerin, d'Mme Jacobs, de Mueren ugekënnegt huet, dass de Grand-Duc
dermat d'accord as, dass dat bei enger nächster Revisioun vun der Konstitutioun
geännert gët, dass mer domat kënnen déi Reserv ophiewen, an domat si mir
selbstverständlech och averstanen.

Mme Marie-Josée Jacobs, Ministre de la Promotion féminine.- Mme Brasseur, et as
nët, dass de Grand-Duc dermat d'accord as, mä et as op ausdréckleche Wonsch vum
Grand-Duc. Ech mengen, dat as nach eng Differenz.

It's interesting to note that here, the "explicit wish" (not just the assent) of
the grand-duke was apparently for a change in the succession law on the occasion
of the next revision to the constitution. Major changes were made in 1998-99,
but not to the succession law.

Furthermore, before the legislature ended in 1999, article 3 was excluded from
the list of amendable articles, so that article was untouchable by the
legislature sitting from 1999 to 2004.

During the debate in May 1999 on which articles to include in the Declaration of
Revision, the following exchange took place (document C-1998-O-058-0012 at
http://www.chd.lu/):

M. Henri Grethen (DP).- Ech menge mech ze erënneren, dass d'Mme Jacobs an Optrag
vum Grand-Duc an d'Châmber koum a gesot huet, de Grand-Duc hätt décidéiert, e
géif d'Hausuerdnung vum Haus Nassau dahingehend ëmänneren, dass d'Successioun
och kéint un eng Fra goen, wann eng Fra Éischtgebuere gët. Ech froë jhust, Här
President, as esou eng Ännerung méiglech, wa mer den Artikel 3 nët revisabel
erklären?

M. le Président.- Den Här Biltgen freet d'Wuert.

M. François Biltgen (CSV), rapporteur.- Mir sin der Menung, dass dat méiglech
as, well jo den Artikel 3 d'Referenz op den Nassauer Familjepakt mécht. Den
Artikel definéiert nët de Contenu vum Nassauer Pakt. Déi Deklaratioun vun haut
verhënnert nët dass dat geschitt, dass de Familjepakt dohigehend ëmgeännert gët,
d'Successioun geschlechterneutral ze gestalten.

My Letzebuergesch is rusty :-) but (with the help of http://www.luxdico.com/) I
make out the following: the representative seemed to recall that Mrs Jacobs once
communicated to the House that the grand-duke had decided to change the house
law of the house of Nassau so as to allow succession to pass to a female [cf.
supra], and asked if it would be possible to declare article 3 amendable; the
response of the committee was that the article referred to but did not define
the content of the pact; not declaring the article amendable would not prevent
changing the family pact so as to make succession gender neutral.

This confirms my view that the pact of 1783 is now a blank sheet; it also
supports your view that the constitutional practice of Luxemburg has been to
allow the grand-duke to write anything he likes on that sheet from time to time,
subject to formal or informal parliamentary approval.

(The law of 1907 lays down primogeniture in the male line of each of the
daughters of Wilhelm IV. It is true that the grand-duke reserved himself (sic!)
the right to make changes to the house law of a "familienstatutarisch" nature,
but I would have thought that introducing female succession went far beyond
family statutes.)

Article 114 itself, however, had been declared amendable in 1999, and was in
fact amended by a law of 19 Dec 2003. According to this new law the
constitution can be amended by a text approved by a 2/3 majority of the
legislature in two votes taken at an interval of at least three months. The
second vote is replaced by a referendum upon request of 1/4 of the legislature
or 25,000 registered voters.

It is thus relatively easy now for a parliamentary majority to amend article 3
if it wishes; the grand-duke is now under the credible threat of explicitly
taking away the blank sheet and replacing it with a non-vacuous article 3.

A couple other points: (1) article 115 says that the constitution can be revised
during a regency except to modify the order of succession to the throne. It is
thus clear that the order of succession is a constitutional matter, and the
power to change it is not *wholly* delegated to the grand-duke. (2) On the other
hand, article 32 defines the powers of the grand-duke as being only those vested
in him by the constitution and laws passed pursuant to the constitution "le tout
sans préjudice de l'art. 3 de la présente Constitution". I am not sure what to
make of that last clause (which was inserted in 1919), but it looks like a
loophole of some sort.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Henk Goslings
2004-07-31 11:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
So my assertion that also the Orange-Nassau House acts, at least in
some ways, also today, as a Nassau branch remains.
The Lippe-Biesterfeld and Bourbon-Parma individuals who are ruling in the Netherlands
and in Luxemburg respectively, may and do call themselves "Nassau" for sentimental
reasons, and there are plenty of examples of houses succeeding other houses but
keeping the name (Romanov, Grimaldi, in more convoluted ways Windsor and Austria).
I understand your argument but do not neccesarily agree; genealogy is
not an exact science and why would the notion that a House can only be
continued in the male line be the one and only truth. Both branches
have clearly choosen otherwise.

<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
The sensible course of action is to rewrite article 3 of the constitution which is
currently vacuous, delete any reference to the pact of 1783 which is spent since
1912, repeal the (possibly unconstitutional) law of 1907 that has in fact governed
the succession in Luxemburg since 1912, and start afresh.
That's where we all seem to agree.
edespalais
2004-07-31 12:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
So my assertion that also the Orange-Nassau House acts, at least in
some ways, also today, as a Nassau branch remains.
The Lippe-Biesterfeld and Bourbon-Parma individuals who are ruling in the Netherlands
and in Luxemburg respectively, may and do call themselves "Nassau" for sentimental
reasons, and there are plenty of examples of houses succeeding other houses but
keeping the name (Romanov, Grimaldi, in more convoluted ways Windsor and Austria).
I understand your argument but do not neccesarily agree; genealogy is
not an exact science and why would the notion that a House can only be
continued in the male line be the one and only truth. Both branches
have clearly choosen otherwise.
exact science, if you work exact /accurate. Often however the real
(biological) father may be hidden, can even not claim any rights
Post by Henk Goslings
<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
The sensible course of action is to rewrite article 3 of the constitution which is
currently vacuous, delete any reference to the pact of 1783 which is spent since
1912, repeal the (possibly unconstitutional) law of 1907 that has in fact governed
the succession in Luxemburg since 1912, and start afresh.
That's where we all seem to agree.
In the case of present house of L becomes extinct in all possible lines.
That seems however rather impossible.
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-01 02:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
So my assertion that also the Orange-Nassau House acts, at least in
some ways, also today, as a Nassau branch remains.
The Lippe-Biesterfeld and Bourbon-Parma individuals who are ruling in the Netherlands
and in Luxemburg respectively, may and do call themselves "Nassau" for sentimental
reasons, and there are plenty of examples of houses succeeding other houses but
keeping the name (Romanov, Grimaldi, in more convoluted ways Windsor and Austria).
I understand your argument but do not neccesarily agree; genealogy is
not an exact science and why would the notion that a House can only be
continued in the male line be the one and only truth. Both branches
have clearly choosen otherwise.
This is not a genealogical question, it's a legal question. They can redefine
what "the house of Nassau" is if they wish, it won't change the text of the 1783
Erbverein.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
edespalais
2004-08-01 06:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
So my assertion that also the Orange-Nassau House acts, at least in
some ways, also today, as a Nassau branch remains.
The Lippe-Biesterfeld and Bourbon-Parma individuals who are ruling in the Netherlands
and in Luxemburg respectively, may and do call themselves "Nassau" for sentimental
reasons, and there are plenty of examples of houses succeeding other houses but
keeping the name (Romanov, Grimaldi, in more convoluted ways Windsor and Austria).
I understand your argument but do not neccesarily agree; genealogy is
not an exact science and why would the notion that a House can only be
continued in the male line be the one and only truth. Both branches
have clearly choosen otherwise.
This is not a genealogical question,
At first a genealogical q, it has to be shown, if and how related
Post by Francois R. Velde
it's a legal question.
Then it is that
Post by Francois R. Velde
They can redefine
what "the house of Nassau" is if they wish, it won't change the text of the 1783
Erbverein.
³Nassauische Erbverein² [of 1783] quoted as such in the Acte du congrès de
Vienne [1815], article LXXI
Post by Francois R. Velde
--
François Velde
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Henk Goslings
2004-08-01 11:18:17 UTC
Permalink
<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
I understand your argument but do not neccesarily agree; genealogy is
not an exact science and why would the notion that a House can only be
continued in the male line be the one and only truth. Both branches
have clearly choosen otherwise.
This is not a genealogical question, it's a legal question. They can redefine
what "the house of Nassau" is if they wish, it won't change the text of the 1783
Erbverein.
But then we are back to my original mail. I agree to your references
to the letter of the agreement but mentioned that the intent could go
further then that. If the intent of the living Nassau branches at the
time was to arrange for succession, even though they only spelled out
what would happen up to and following the last male dynast, then there
is room for a wider, also legal, interpretation of the succeeding
branches in the sense that they still see the Erbverein as a living
document.
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-01 14:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
I understand your argument but do not neccesarily agree; genealogy is
not an exact science and why would the notion that a House can only be
continued in the male line be the one and only truth. Both branches
have clearly choosen otherwise.
This is not a genealogical question, it's a legal question. They can redefine
what "the house of Nassau" is if they wish, it won't change the text of the 1783
Erbverein.
But then we are back to my original mail. I agree to your references
to the letter of the agreement but mentioned that the intent could go
further then that. If the intent of the living Nassau branches at the
time was to arrange for succession, even though they only spelled out
what would happen up to and following the last male dynast, then there
is room for a wider, also legal, interpretation of the succeeding
branches in the sense that they still see the Erbverein as a living
document.
But the pact spells out that once a branch dies out in male line, all its
estates passes to the surviving branches. How can you interpret this to mean
that something remains to the daughter of each surviving branch? And what
remains in that interpretation? What clauses do you think still have meaning?
And there were four branches in existence in 1783: why only keep two in female
line?

Besides, the idea that the pact somehow binds succeeding branches in female line
is contradicted by what happened both in the Netherlands and in Luxemburg. The
law of 1907 in Luxemburg is not the semi-Salic law that prevailed before (should
the line of grand-duchess Charlotte die out in male line, the daughter of the
last male gets nothing). And, of course, the succession law was changed in the
Netherlands unilaterally without the slightest reference to the pact of 1783 or
without the consent of Luxemburg.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Henk Goslings
2004-08-02 08:44:53 UTC
Permalink
snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
But then we are back to my original mail. I agree to your references
to the letter of the agreement but mentioned that the intent could go
further then that. If the intent of the living Nassau branches at the
time was to arrange for succession, even though they only spelled out
what would happen up to and following the last male dynast, then there
is room for a wider, also legal, interpretation of the succeeding
branches in the sense that they still see the Erbverein as a living
document.
But the pact spells out that once a branch dies out in male line, all its
estates passes to the surviving branches. How can you interpret this to mean
that something remains to the daughter of each surviving branch? And what
remains in that interpretation? What clauses do you think still have meaning?
And there were four branches in existence in 1783: why only keep two in female
line?
I know what the pact spells out. I am further not suggesting that any
of the particular provisions would have an impact on current affairs.
I only suggest that the successors of the two surviving branches, or
one of them, might still sees some underlying intent in the old pact
to arrange for succession in general. With that, one could possibly
understand what would drive GD Henri(and maybe GD Jean before) to
refer to the old pact and as far as I can see it could only be this
underlying intent then anything else.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Besides, the idea that the pact somehow binds succeeding branches in female line
is contradicted by what happened both in the Netherlands and in Luxemburg. The
law of 1907 in Luxemburg is not the semi-Salic law that prevailed before (should
the line of grand-duchess Charlotte die out in male line, the daughter of the
last male gets nothing). And, of course, the succession law was changed in the
Netherlands unilaterally without the slightest reference to the pact of 1783 or
without the consent of Luxemburg.
The Netherlands was never part of the pact.

Henk Goslings
edespalais
2004-08-02 09:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Henk Goslings
But then we are back to my original mail. I agree to your references
to the letter of the agreement but mentioned that the intent could go
further then that. If the intent of the living Nassau branches at the
time was to arrange for succession, even though they only spelled out
what would happen up to and following the last male dynast, then there
is room for a wider, also legal, interpretation of the succeeding
branches in the sense that they still see the Erbverein as a living
document.
But the pact spells out that once a branch dies out in male line, all its
estates passes to the surviving branches. How can you interpret this to mean
that something remains to the daughter of each surviving branch? And what
remains in that interpretation? What clauses do you think still have meaning?
And there were four branches in existence in 1783: why only keep two in female
line?
I know what the pact spells out. I am further not suggesting that any
of the particular provisions would have an impact on current affairs.
I only suggest that the successors of the two surviving branches, or
one of them, might still sees some underlying intent in the old pact
to arrange for succession in general. With that, one could possibly
understand what would drive GD Henri(and maybe GD Jean before) to
refer to the old pact and as far as I can see it could only be this
underlying intent then anything else.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Besides, the idea that the pact somehow binds succeeding branches in female line
is contradicted by what happened both in the Netherlands and in Luxemburg.
The
law of 1907 in Luxemburg is not the semi-Salic law that prevailed before (should
the line of grand-duchess Charlotte die out in male line, the daughter of the
last male gets nothing). And, of course, the succession law was changed in the
Netherlands unilaterally without the slightest reference to the pact of 1783 or
without the consent of Luxemburg.
The Netherlands was never part of the pact.
Correct, but the N will /might stand behind the House of the N. Does it not
refer to the name Nassau. A little bit too much? This House may even be
considered to unequal descendants, therefore excluded of Nassauische .. of
1783
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-02 12:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
I know what the pact spells out. I am further not suggesting that any
of the particular provisions would have an impact on current affairs.
I only suggest that the successors of the two surviving branches, or
one of them, might still sees some underlying intent in the old pact
to arrange for succession in general. With that, one could possibly
understand what would drive GD Henri(and maybe GD Jean before) to
refer to the old pact and as far as I can see it could only be this
underlying intent then anything else.
I don't know what that "underlying intent" could be; you haven't been very
specific.

I think the reasons for the continued reference to the pact by the GD is simply
that it is cited in the constitution; why it still is, is an interesting
question.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Uwe
2004-08-02 09:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Besides, the idea that the pact somehow binds succeeding branches in female line
is contradicted by what happened both in the Netherlands and in Luxemburg. The
law of 1907 in Luxemburg is not the semi-Salic law that prevailed before (should
the line of grand-duchess Charlotte die out in male line, the daughter of the
last male gets nothing). And, of course, the succession law was changed in the
Netherlands unilaterally without the slightest reference to the pact of 1783 or
without the consent of Luxemburg.
The Netherlands were of course a country that just happened to be
reigned by a Nassau. It was not part of Nassau lands and so the
Erbverein-clauses were not relevant there.
edespalais
2004-08-02 09:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uwe
Post by Francois R. Velde
Besides, the idea that the pact somehow binds succeeding branches in female line
is contradicted by what happened both in the Netherlands and in Luxemburg.
The
law of 1907 in Luxemburg is not the semi-Salic law that prevailed before (should
the line of grand-duchess Charlotte die out in male line, the daughter of the
last male gets nothing). And, of course, the succession law was changed in the
Netherlands unilaterally without the slightest reference to the pact of 1783 or
without the consent of Luxemburg.
The Netherlands were of course a country that just happened to be
reigned by a Nassau.
It was not part of Nassau lands and so the
Erbverein-clauses were not relevant there.
Correct, indeed!
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-02 12:55:14 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Uwe
Post by Uwe
Post by Francois R. Velde
Besides, the idea that the pact somehow binds succeeding branches in female line
is contradicted by what happened both in the Netherlands and in Luxemburg. The
law of 1907 in Luxemburg is not the semi-Salic law that prevailed before (should
the line of grand-duchess Charlotte die out in male line, the daughter of the
last male gets nothing). And, of course, the succession law was changed in the
Netherlands unilaterally without the slightest reference to the pact of 1783 or
without the consent of Luxemburg.
The Netherlands were of course a country that just happened to be
reigned by a Nassau. It was not part of Nassau lands and so the
Erbverein-clauses were not relevant there.
I realize that. But Henk is arguing that "the intent" of the pact is still felt
as valid by "surviving branches" in female line. I don't know what that means,
but he seems to apply it to the people ruling over the Netherlands.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Henk Goslings
2004-08-03 08:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Francois R. Velde <***@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...

<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
I realize that. But Henk is arguing that "the intent" of the pact is still felt
as valid by "surviving branches" in female line. I don't know what that means,
but he seems to apply it to the people ruling over the Netherlands.
The underlying intent : the arrangement between the Walramian and
Ottonian branches for succession in the House IN GENERAL (realising
that the actual text only spelled out succession up to and immediately
following the last male dynast).

Surviving branches: The successors of the two above branches, i.e. the
Houses in The Netherlands and Luxembourg.

I do not regard the Landgrave Moritz of Hesse, as suggested by Frank
Johansen below, a successor of one of the Walramian branches as
Nassau-Weilburg already succeeded to Usingen long before the end of
the male succession in the House.
Uwe
2004-08-03 09:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
I realize that. But Henk is arguing that "the intent" of the pact is still felt
as valid by "surviving branches" in female line. I don't know what that means,
but he seems to apply it to the people ruling over the Netherlands.
The underlying intent : the arrangement between the Walramian and
Ottonian branches for succession in the House IN GENERAL (realising
that the actual text only spelled out succession up to and immediately
following the last male dynast).
Surviving branches: The successors of the two above branches, i.e. the
Houses in The Netherlands and Luxembourg.
I do not regard the Landgrave Moritz of Hesse, as suggested by Frank
Johansen below, a successor of one of the Walramian branches as
Nassau-Weilburg already succeeded to Usingen long before the end of
the male succession in the House.
The end of male succession in the House was the succession of Guillaume
IV of Luxemburg in 1905. The Ottonian branch became extinct already long
before (in the male line).

The exercise of F. Johansen just shows that it is not exclusively Queen
Beatrix of the Netherlands who can somehow justify a sort of succession
to a now extinct Nassau-branch that was in existence 1783.

If there was any "intent" in the Erbverein, it was to ensure that *the
one house* of Nassau acts in uniformity with regard to successions (thus
avoising unnecessary struggels as after the demise of William III of GB,
NL and Orange). The "intent" was surely not to ensure that there will be
two seperate branches for eternity.
Henk Goslings
2004-08-03 14:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uwe
Post by Henk Goslings
<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
I realize that. But Henk is arguing that "the intent" of the pact is still felt
as valid by "surviving branches" in female line. I don't know what that means,
but he seems to apply it to the people ruling over the Netherlands.
The underlying intent : the arrangement between the Walramian and
Ottonian branches for succession in the House IN GENERAL (realising
that the actual text only spelled out succession up to and immediately
following the last male dynast).
Surviving branches: The successors of the two above branches, i.e. the
Houses in The Netherlands and Luxembourg.
I do not regard the Landgrave Moritz of Hesse, as suggested by Frank
Johansen below, a successor of one of the Walramian branches as
Nassau-Weilburg already succeeded to Usingen long before the end of
the male succession in the House.
The end of male succession in the House was the succession of Guillaume
IV of Luxemburg in 1905. The Ottonian branch became extinct already long
before (in the male line).
The exercise of F. Johansen just shows that it is not exclusively Queen
Beatrix of the Netherlands who can somehow justify a sort of succession
to a now extinct Nassau-branch that was in existence 1783.
If there was any "intent" in the Erbverein, it was to ensure that *the
one house* of Nassau acts in uniformity with regard to successions (thus
avoising unnecessary struggels as after the demise of William III of GB,
NL and Orange). The "intent" was surely not to ensure that there will be
two seperate branches for eternity.
Well, I leave it to GD Henri's legal counsel on how they want to
iterpret it all and resolve the changes to the
constitution/succession; we will see. Thanks for the discussion.

Henk Goslings
2004-08-02 12:53:29 UTC
Permalink
<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
And there were four branches in existence in 1783: why only keep two in female
line?
Because GD Adolf as head of the Hous made in 1905 the head of the
Orange-Nassau branch co-head of the Nassau House order. No one I
suppose challenges the succession in these lines since. Also the Dutch
and Luxembourg lines are the only branches using the name, titles and
arms of Nassau. Any other living branches you have in mind who could
claim something similar ?

Henk Goslings
edespalais
2004-08-02 15:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
<snipped>
Post by Francois R. Velde
And there were four branches in existence in 1783: why only keep two in female
line?
Because GD Adolf as head of the Hous made in 1905 the head of the
Orange-Nassau branch co-head of the Nassau House order. No one I
suppose challenges the succession in these lines since.
The marriage with Lippe, etc equal?
Frank Johansen
2004-08-02 13:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
But the pact spells out that once a branch dies out in male line, all its
estates passes to the surviving branches. How can you interpret this to mean
that something remains to the daughter of each surviving branch? And what
remains in that interpretation? What clauses do you think still have meaning?
And there were four branches in existence in 1783: why only keep two in female
line?
Just out of curiosity, the heirs-semi-salic of the signers of the 1783
treaty is:

For "Wilhelm, Prince d'Orange, Fürst zu Nassau" - Queen Beatrix of the
Netherlands.

For "Carl, Fürst zu Nassau" (Weilburg) - Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg.

For "Carl Wilhelm, Fürst zu Nassau" (Usingen) - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.

For "Friedrich, P. zu Nassau-Usingen" - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.

For "Adolph, P. zu Nassau-Usingen" - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.

Regards
Frank H. Johansen
edespalais
2004-08-02 15:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Johansen
Post by Francois R. Velde
But the pact spells out that once a branch dies out in male line, all its
estates passes to the surviving branches. How can you interpret this to mean
that something remains to the daughter of each surviving branch? And what
remains in that interpretation? What clauses do you think still have meaning?
And there were four branches in existence in 1783: why only keep two in female
line?
Just out of curiosity, the heirs-semi-salic of the signers of the 1783
For "Wilhelm, Prince d'Orange, Fürst zu Nassau" - Queen Beatrix of the
Netherlands.
In the case her mother's, her own marriage are to be considered equal
marriages
Post by Frank Johansen
For "Carl, Fürst zu Nassau" (Weilburg) - Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg.
For "Carl Wilhelm, Fürst zu Nassau" (Usingen) - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.
For "Friedrich, P. zu Nassau-Usingen" - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.
For "Adolph, P. zu Nassau-Usingen" - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.
The last three may be the descendants but are they entitled to any legal
claims?
Frank Johansen
2004-08-02 15:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by edespalais
Post by Frank Johansen
Just out of curiosity, the heirs-semi-salic of the signers of the 1783
For "Wilhelm, Prince d'Orange, Fürst zu Nassau" - Queen Beatrix of the
Netherlands.
In the case her mother's, her own marriage are to be considered equal
marriages
Post by Frank Johansen
For "Carl, Fürst zu Nassau" (Weilburg) - Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg.
For "Carl Wilhelm, Fürst zu Nassau" (Usingen) - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.
For "Friedrich, P. zu Nassau-Usingen" - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.
For "Adolph, P. zu Nassau-Usingen" - Landgrave Moritz of Hesse.
The last three may be the descendants but are they entitled to any legal
claims?
No, only the male-line descendants of the daughters of the last male of
the Nassau-dynasty have any legal claims.

Regards
Frank H. Johansen
edespalais
2004-08-01 07:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Austria did not recognize part of the Lippe as members of the sovereign
family
Louis Epstein
2004-07-31 19:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henk Goslings
Post by Francois R. Velde
The original parties were the male lines of the house of Nassau. The
male lines are all extinct. Nothing in the pact governs the succession
after it has passed through females.
That's correct by the letter of the agreement but one wonders if the
intent doesn't go further then that. One could argue that the pact was
an arrangement between the different branches of the House of Nassau,
which indeed at the time was governed by semi-salic succession. But
times have changed and the two surviving branches of the House have
both been effected by female succession and then why not either ammend
the old agreement ot make a new one. Currently the only element, as
far as I am aware, where both branches act together is the co-headship
of the House order but nothing could stop them from extending that I
would think. But for succession in a constitutional monarchy, the
final word should be with the people, i.e. parliament and therefor
changing the constitution looks the best way forward.
For the "final word" to "be with the people" contradicts the
entire essence of Monarchy.A Head of State deriving authority
from those governed is a fundamentally republican concept.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
edespalais
2004-07-31 22:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Henk Goslings
Post by Francois R. Velde
The original parties were the male lines of the house of Nassau. The
male lines are all extinct. Nothing in the pact governs the succession
after it has passed through females.
That's correct by the letter of the agreement but one wonders if the
intent doesn't go further then that. One could argue that the pact was
an arrangement between the different branches of the House of Nassau,
which indeed at the time was governed by semi-salic succession. But
times have changed and the two surviving branches of the House have
both been effected by female succession and then why not either ammend
the old agreement ot make a new one. Currently the only element, as
far as I am aware, where both branches act together is the co-headship
of the House order but nothing could stop them from extending that I
would think. But for succession in a constitutional monarchy, the
final word should be with the people, i.e. parliament and therefor
changing the constitution looks the best way forward.
For the "final word" to "be with the people" contradicts the
entire essence of Monarchy.A Head of State deriving authority
from those governed is a fundamentally republican concept.
The final world could be with the fact of the unequal marriages of the House
of the Netherlands (Lippe, A .. [do not keep the name in my mind!
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-07-28 16:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yannis
Luxembourgish media report today that during his meeting with the
Grand Duke yesterday, the prime minister designate, J.C. Juncker,
pointed out that Luxembourg succession should change in order to allow
first-born females to inherit the throne (as is already the case in
Sweden, Belgium etc.). Speaking to the press afterwards, Juncker said
that it was up to the GD to decide how it was most appropriate to do
that, i.e. by changing the "Nassauischer Erbverein" (the Nassau Family
Pact) or by changing the Constitution. It is reported that Luxembourg
will in future withdraw its reservations on international conventions
on the equality of men and women, concerning succession to the throne
.
Anyone who can read German can consult the electronic edition of the
Luxemburger Wort http://www.wort.lu/ title of piece "Änderungen in
Thronfolge vorgesehen "
Apparently, the decision was taken during coalition negotiations
between Juncker's governing CSV party (right-wing christian democrats)
and the socialists (LSAP) who are to enter the government to replace
the Liberals (Demokratesch Partei - DP) after the latters' debacle in
the 13 June 2004 general election.
[...]

The direct link can be found here:

http://web.saint-paul.lu/ContentManagement/site/lw_index.html?detail=1&id=4070137&return=headlines

(Not sure how long it will last, though.)
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Uwe
2004-07-29 15:51:58 UTC
Permalink
The practical implications of this prospect chance in succession will
possibly be very limited today (not necessarily in the next generations):
If one assumes that Luxemburg follows the example of Belgium (1993) and
Sweden (1979), then only female descendants of the present Grand Duke
will be included in the new rules. The example of Norway (1990)is to
some extent similar with the then Crown Prince's female offspring being
included and an extra clause regarding the daughter of the then Crown
Prince (plus a certain limitation regarding the rights of distant cousins).
The example of the Netherlands (1983) was principally more radical,
however without real effects at that time, due to the limitations in the
succession by the rule of a certain degree of relationship.

So my bet would be that the new line of succession in Luxemburg will now
only be enlarged by the only daughter of the Grand Duke (on place No. 4).
To include her first cousin Charlotte on place No. 9 would probably
never have any real effects. Even Grand Duke Adolph, the record holder
in climbing up within the line of succession, was "only" 8th in the
mid-1840s. So I do not think that the government of Luxemburg will
complicate the constitution only for Princess Charlotte.

I do not think that Luxemburg will follow the dutch example because the
status of the elder sister of the present Grand Duke would have to be
handled separately. Other scenarios such as including the whole
offspring of GD Charlotte seem even more unlikely.

The only real losers of the new rules could possibly be the saxonian
prince/princes (if they have ever cared about their status regarding
Luxemburg). The change of the rules could be a chance to get rid of some
open questions that we have discussed here on atr.
Jane Keel
2004-07-30 01:07:08 UTC
Permalink
If the proposed law is applied retroactively -- so as to insert
Princess Alexandra in the succession ahead of her only younger brother
(which I can't imagine to be unduly upsetting to Prince Sebastian, now
only 4th in line to the throne) -- then I can't imagine it being
problematic to include the sisters of the present sovereign being
placed in the succession behind their brothers (like the relationship
between the present Norwegian king's two children), with absolute
primogeniture being similarly applied to the children of Princesses
Marie-Astrid and Margaretha (males who previously have enjoyed no
succession rights should not complain about being inserted in
subordinate positions to their older sisters, in the line to the
throne -- especially if they are to witness some male cousin dynasts
getting displaced by the new law).

If, on the other hand, it is decided that male-preferred primogeniture
should be applied to the children of Grand Duke Henri and his younger
brother (Prince Guillaume), with absolute applying only to the next
generation and beyond, then it seems likely that the sovereign's
sisters (and their children) would be totally excluded from
Luxembourg's throne: it's difficult to justify male-preferred
primogeniture as the relative order of succession amongst siblings who
previously were not even in line, to start with.

I suspect that this quandary was (in part) what led the Norwegian
Parliament to decide on the continued exclusion of Princesses Ragnhild
and Astrid, from the royal succession.
Uwe
2004-07-30 13:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane Keel
If the proposed law is applied retroactively -- so as to insert
Princess Alexandra in the succession ahead of her only younger brother
(which I can't imagine to be unduly upsetting to Prince Sebastian, now
only 4th in line to the throne) -- then I can't imagine it being
problematic to include the sisters of the present sovereign being
placed in the succession behind their brothers (like the relationship
between the present Norwegian king's two children), with absolute
primogeniture being similarly applied to the children of Princesses
Marie-Astrid and Margaretha (males who previously have enjoyed no
succession rights should not complain about being inserted in
subordinate positions to their older sisters, in the line to the
throne -- especially if they are to witness some male cousin dynasts
getting displaced by the new law).
If, on the other hand, it is decided that male-preferred primogeniture
should be applied to the children of Grand Duke Henri and his younger
brother (Prince Guillaume), with absolute applying only to the next
generation and beyond, then it seems likely that the sovereign's
sisters (and their children) would be totally excluded from
Luxembourg's throne: it's difficult to justify male-preferred
primogeniture as the relative order of succession amongst siblings who
previously were not even in line, to start with.
I suspect that this quandary was (in part) what led the Norwegian
Parliament to decide on the continued exclusion of Princesses Ragnhild
and Astrid, from the royal succession.
My guess is, that Luxemburg will follow the belgian (and swedish)
example and apply the law as you say retroactively. Prince Sebastian's
position in the line of succession would only be marginally worse.
Prince Laurent of Belgium and Princes Carl Philipp and Bertil of Sweden
were displaced relatively further away.
Jane Keel
2004-07-30 21:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Uwe <***@wirtschaft.uni-giessen.deREMOVETHIS> wrote in message news:<cedhb4$2j$***@isis.hrz.uni-giessen.de>...
the royal succession.
Post by Uwe
My guess is, that Luxemburg will follow the belgian (and swedish)
example and apply the law as you say retroactively. Prince Sebastian's
position in the line of succession would only be marginally worse.
Prince Laurent of Belgium and Princes Carl Philipp and Bertil of Sweden
were displaced relatively further away.
Come to think of it, the late Prince Knud of Denmark was (like Prince
Laurent of Belgium) also displaced by three notches in line to the
throne, as a result of the 1953 constitutional amendment -- but that
was by male-preferred primogeniture (a not entirely novel concept of
succession), and the females placed ahead of him were nieces, not
sisters.

However (unlike the Belgian prince), the Danish prince was first in
the succession (albeit as heir presumptive): so you might make the
case that his displacement from the throne has been the most radical,
historically speaking.

Of course, Prince Carl Philip of Sweden was born heir apparent -- but
he got displaced by only one notch.

I think that the proposed absolute primogeniture will pull through
successfully, in a Luxembourg constitutional amendment (I understand
that this is the route for effecting such a change, rather than
modifying the Nassau Erbverein, the provisions of which have been said
to have become exhausted in the 1912 accession of Grand Duchess Marie
Adelaide), in part because it should have (like you said) at best only
a marginal effect on the succession (even if retroactive): a similar
thing can describe the 1983 Dutch constitutional amendment -- which
didn't even change the existing line of succession.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...