Discussion:
Luxembourg: Prince Louis (19) to become a father
(too old to reply)
Dag T. Hoelseth
2005-09-22 16:26:11 UTC
Permalink
The Grand Ducal Court of Luxembourg informed on Wednesday that Prince Louis
(19), the third son of Grand Duke Henri and Grand Duchess Maria Teresa, and
his girl-friend are expecting a child in the spring. The couple has at
present no plans of marriage.

http://www.wort.lu/articles/4959404.html (Wort Thursday 22 September 2005;
in German)

The girl-friend was not named in Wort, but at the Benelux Royals Message
Board she has been referred to as having the name Tessy. The baby will be
the Grand Ducal couple's first grandchild.
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Dag T. Hoelseth
2005-09-22 16:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
The Grand Ducal Court of Luxembourg informed on Wednesday that Prince Louis
(19), the third son of Grand Duke Henri and Grand Duchess Maria Teresa, and
his girl-friend are expecting a child in the spring. The couple has at
present no plans of marriage.
http://www.wort.lu/articles/4959404.html (Wort Thursday 22 September 2005;
in German)
The girl-friend was not named in Wort, but at the Benelux Royals Message
Board she has been referred to as having the name Tessy. The baby will be
the Grand Ducal couple's first grandchild.
It should be added that no written statement as such was actually released
to the press, but the information was given in a meeting with the Marshall
of the Court on Wednesday (cf. Netty Leistra, Benelux Royals Message board
22 September 2005, who has been in contact with the court).
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Dag T. Hoelseth
2005-09-22 17:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dag T. Hoelseth
The Grand Ducal Court of Luxembourg informed on Wednesday that Prince Louis
(19), the third son of Grand Duke Henri and Grand Duchess Maria Teresa, and
his girl-friend are expecting a child in the spring. The couple has at
present no plans of marriage.
http://www.wort.lu/articles/4959404.html (Wort Thursday 22 September 2005;
in German)
The girl-friend was not named in Wort, but at the Benelux Royals Message
Board she has been referred to as having the name Tessy.
Tagablatt refers to the girl-friend as Tessy Antony:

http://www.tageblatt.lu/edition/article.asp?ArticleId=40202

But I have also seen the name Tessy Hansen (Royals Portal).
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
David / Amicus
2005-09-22 20:22:02 UTC
Permalink
What does the prince do for a living? How is he going to support his
child? Will the baby go on the public dole either through welfare or a
royal grant? Will the bastard automatically be born a prince/ss?
Dan Willis
2005-09-23 02:53:58 UTC
Permalink
No automatic title. The child is entitled to the surname de Nassau, but
that will be a decision for the parents to make. No idea what either
Louis or Tessy do for a living. If he does not have a job at the
moment, I am sure his father will find him one pretty quickly!

I have to say am very impressed with the openness in which the
Luxembourg Royal Family is handling the situation. Best wishes to all!!

Dan
p***@hotmail.com
2005-09-23 05:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
What does the prince do for a living? How is he going to support his
child? Will the baby go on the public dole either through welfare or a
royal grant? Will the bastard automatically be born a prince/ss?
Prince Louis is nineteen years old. Surely he does not have to do
anything for a living. You seem rather unusually disturbed by the young
man sowing his seed, is this not what young men do? How long are
Royalty supposed to be live by those un-natural Victorian mores that
everyone holds them to?
David / Amicus
2005-09-23 07:29:07 UTC
Permalink
<<How long are Royalty supposed to be live by those un-natural Victorian
mores that everyone holds them to?>>

So long as they want the perks of being royals. Let them give up their
titles and priveleges if they're not going to live decent and proper
lives!
Uwe
2005-09-23 09:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
<<How long are Royalty supposed to be live by those un-natural Victorian
mores that everyone holds them to?>>
So long as they want the perks of being royals. Let them give up their
titles and priveleges if they're not going to live decent and proper
lives!
It is not the choice of Prince Louis to give up his title. That choice
is only up to his sovereign.
Prince Louis has also not caused much public attention as far as I can
remember. As he has just finished this year his school-time, it is also
hard to say for an outsider if he has lived decent and proper or not.
Todays news does not give any hint either. He has just fathered a child.
Full stop.
c***@virgin.net
2005-09-23 16:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
<<How long are Royalty supposed to be live by those un-natural Victorian
mores that everyone holds them to?>>
So long as they want the perks of being royals. Let them give up their
titles and priveleges if they're not going to live decent and proper
lives!
Presumably you were to be found with a placard outside the Elysee
demanding the resignation of President Mitterand for fathering an
illegitimate child. Or, let me guess, total silence on your part.
Correct?
David / Amicus
2005-09-23 19:41:22 UTC
Permalink
<<Presumably you were to be found with a placard outside the Elysee
demanding the resignation of President Mitterand for fathering an
illegitimate child. Or, let me guess, total silence on your part.
Correct?>>

Don't know much about French affairs. But as an American I wanted Bill
Clinton to resign or be removed from office for his immoral behavior!
Candide
2005-09-25 19:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@virgin.net
Post by David / Amicus
<<How long are Royalty supposed to be live by those un-natural Victorian
mores that everyone holds them to?>>
So long as they want the perks of being royals. Let them give up their
titles and priveleges if they're not going to live decent and proper
lives!
Presumably you were to be found with a placard outside the Elysee
demanding the resignation of President Mitterand for fathering an
illegitimate child. Or, let me guess, total silence on your part.
Correct?
I hope you are not comparing M. Mitterrand with royalty. However many
French kings sired children from women whom were not their queen
consorts, in fact so did more than one English king. It wasn't until
Victoria came to the throne and decided to put an end to "continental"
behaviour in royal circles. HM dispatched this "Victorian " ideal
though-out many of the royal houses of Europe with mixed and sometimes
disastrous results.

Empress Alexandra of Russia tried and failed to impose Victorian morals
at her court, and look what that got her.

Candide
David / Amicus
2005-09-25 20:41:42 UTC
Permalink
<<Empress Alexandra of Russia tried and failed to impose Victorian
morals at her court, and look what that got her.>>

She now wears a marty's crown in Heaven where she makes intercession for
her poor country (Russia).
Candide
2005-09-25 21:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
<<Empress Alexandra of Russia tried and failed to impose Victorian
morals at her court, and look what that got her.>>
She now wears a marty's crown in Heaven where she makes intercession for
her poor country (Russia).
While one does sympathise with the horrors suffered by the last czar
and his family, it is worth remembering much of this "pity" comes post
fact of their demise. Posterity demands examination of all the facts
surrounding a person's life and on that score Alexandra comes up a bit
short.

In about as louche royal court as one would find at the time, Alexandra
was a priggish if not some what prudish English "lady" who made little
or no effort to adapt, but like her grand-mother insisted all things
adapt the other way around. Her tendency to take on a thing with manic
zeal, present since childhood would grow and become one of her largest
detractions. Not content like other Russian imperial consorts to merely
adopt the religion of her husband, she became nearly obsessed with her
practice that it offended many of those whom had been members since
birth.

Shocked by the behaviour and dress of the court (especially of the
ladies), Alexandra decided she ought to be the proper English governess
and adjure the ladies to be demure,modest, take up charity work, and
form sewing circles . HIM was stung when the Russian ladies shot back
they were not taking marching orders from an English "lady" imported via
Hesse-Darmstadt, and had no time for her busy work ideas. This caused
Alexandra to retreat further from court and society. Problem is when one
is not around to prove otherwise, all sorts of rumours are taken as
fact. It also gives enemies full reign to destroy a reputation and by
all accounts this is what happened to Alexandra.

As for Alexandra's relationship to her husband, she had more influence
than many of her peers over their husbands, and more the pity she didn't
take advantage. Rather than seeing the larger picture and sticking to
her ideas of reform (for which her grand-father, Prince Albert would be
proud), she allowed herself to be taken in to the theory Russians were
like children and Russia needed a strong had at the reigns. While the
later part may or may not be true, it is worth nothing the hands
directly holding the reigns does not have to be royal one. Moving Russia
towards a constitutional monarchy would have allowed power to remain
with the throne, but blame for polices elsewhere. More than anyone else
Alexandra had the power to make her husband see sense, a few well chosen
words at crucial times might have made not only a huge difference in how
her life played out, but Russian history as well.
Charles Riordan
2005-09-27 15:37:20 UTC
Permalink
I hope you are not comparing M. Mitterrand with royalty. >
Candide
Perhaps he should not be confused with royalty, but like other
Presidents of the French Republic, he was Co-Prince of Andorra! The
line between royal and non-royal heads of state is not quite as sharp
as it might seem at first. Witness oligarchically elected monarchs
such as the Pope (il papa re "the Pope-King,\") with -- until recently
-- his tiara or triple crown; and, in earleir times the Kings of
Poland, and the Holy Roman Emperors. Witness also dictators who rule
(and reign?) for life, and even try to found dynasties -- the Duvaliers
in Haiti (Papa Doc and his son), the President of the Central African
Republic who turned it into the Central African Empire,complete wiith
Napoleonic coronation -- and Napoleon himself is another example.
Witness even the present leader of supposedly Communist North Korea.
Look at the emergence of the ancient Roman Empire with its dynasties
from the Roman Republic. Look at republican informal "dynasties" such
as Adams, Harrisons, Kennedys, and Bushes in America, and the
Nehru-Gandhis in India.

Charles Riordan

David / Amicus
2005-09-23 05:32:41 UTC
Permalink
I want royals to be a cut above the common herd. I want someone to look
up to and respect. Nothing to be proud of by knocking up his honey of
the moment. He's not setting a good example. He's placed himself on the
lowest common denominator. He's a prince; he should put duty and honor
first!
t***@optusnet.com.au
2005-09-23 06:27:45 UTC
Permalink
I am glad that young Louis took on his responsibility for what he has
done. Remember how many have paid them off and sent them off to the new
world. Congratuations to him and hopefully his future bride.

Regards
Charles Said-Vassallo
www.maltagenealogy.com
Tee
2005-09-27 00:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
I want royals to be a cut above the common herd.
They are. Many, if not most, of them are loaded and lead lives of
priveledge that a great many people never see except in the movies or on
television.
Post by David / Amicus
I want someone to look
up to and respect.
I can't respect people just because they're rich or titled. Titles and
wealth (where applicable) are things guaranteed at birth for royals but,
IMO, its their actions as adults that determine whether or not they are
worthy of respect.
Post by David / Amicus
Nothing to be proud of by knocking up his honey of
the moment. He's not setting a good example.
Actually I think, given the circumstances, he & his family are setting a
very good example by owning up to the pregnancy. Rather than deny it or
find some way to keep it quiet, like I'm betting more than one royal male in
the past has done, they're standing up and taking responsibility.
Post by David / Amicus
He's placed himself on the
lowest common denominator.
He's acting like a normal young man prone to bad judgement.
Post by David / Amicus
He's a prince; he should put duty and honor
first!
He is. He put his duty to be a decent human being first by admitting to
fathering a child. He's honoring an unspoken commitment to the girl by not
leaving her to deal with an unplanned pregnancy alone. Its possible that
his parents are making him do this, in which case I don't think he gets much
credit for his seemingly honorable actions, but I've heard this is a very
strict and/or religious family so I'd think they would have been more prone
to balking at an admission like this.
--
Tara
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...