Posted by Johan on 13/5/2008, 17:20:24, in reply to "Re: Renunciation of rights"
164.140.159.143
A problematic example as France was and still is a republic so it's constitution doesn't speak about kingship or succession.
Spain was under dictatorial rule, if the monarchy had continued after 1935 things might have turned out differently. Juan Carlos would most likely not have become king in 1975, but if he would have become king at all or when is pure speculation.
I think one of the Habsburg archdukes renounced his rights during the monarchy. Im not sure how that went though.
--Previous Message--
: Prince Jaime, second son of King Alfonso XIII
: of Spain, evidently renounced his rights to
: the Spanish succession in 1933 as a result
: of a physical disability. In 1941 however,
: being the senior representative of the House
: of Bourbon, he asserted rights to the French
: throne. In 1949 he rescinded his earlier
: renunciation of his rights to the Spanish
: succession, but in 1969 he once more
: renounced his Spanish succession rights in
: favour of his nephew, current Spanish King
: Juan Carlos I (son of his younger brother).
:
: Prince Jaime's grandson Louis Alphonse has
: taken the title Duc d'Anjou and is
: apparently a claimant to the French throne.
:
: --Previous Message--
: We have had the actual situation of the
: first
: in line of succession writing to the monarch
: that he no longer considers himself an heir.
: Yet when the sovereign died the government
: of the day (with constitutional expertise as
: the new constitution was hardly a year old)
: concluded that his letter didn't have any
: constitutional consequences. Willem III
: could of course imediately have abdicated
: and as that was seen as undesirable. It was
: expected that Willem III would only reign 9
: years to abdicate for his son as he became
: 18. Though as the years passed it became
: clear the reluctant king didn't intend to
: abdicate at all.
: So in the Dutch case precedent has made it
: clear that an heir cannot renounce throne
: rights.
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I have never heard anyone with the slightest
: bit of constitutional knowledge state that a
: Dutch heir can renounce his rights.
:
: Hmm. One can still have considerable (or
: some) constitutional knowledge and still
: question the common interpretation. As said
: earlier, I am not saying that the common
: interpretation is not correct, just finding
: it interesting that the Dutch and Norwegian
: constitutions, which don't mention the
: possibility of renunciation, still are (or
: can be said to be) viewed differently. Of
: course two very different countries with
: different constitutional history and
: practice, although similarities can be
: found. As far as I know (I haven't looked
: into it yet) only T.H. Aschehoug says it is
: possible for a Norwegian king or dynast to
: abdicate/renounce, but the history backs him
: up, although the circumstances in 1814 and
: 1905 were extraordinary.
:
: As stated there are ways to get out of the
: line of succession, just not single
: handedly.
: Any book on the constitution will explain
: the articles concerning the succession as
: something one cannot renounce.
:
: Examples?
:
: DTH
:
:
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread