Posted by Johan on 14/5/2008, 8:48:44, in reply to "Re: Renunciation of rights"
164.140.159.143
The principle of ministerial responsability was introduced with the new constitution of 1848. Before that the ministers were freely appointed by the king and the king as head of the government ruled not only reigned. From 1848 the ministers are politically responsable for governing the country meaning the monarch now only reigns but no longer rules.
The constitution was very liberal for it's time and Willem III was raised to be an autocratic monarch like his grandfather Willem I and his maternal uncles Czars Alexander I and Nicholas I.
--Previous Message--
: Interesting story.
: I've never heard of it before.
: What kind of constitutional changes were
: made that upset so much the Pr. of Orange ?
:
: --Previous Message--
: I have never heard anyone with the slightest
: bit of constitutional knowledge state that a
: Dutch heir can renounce his rights.
: 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.
: The European courts could see that as
: opposing the Human rights but as long as no
: heir(ess) has started a legal suite that is
: pure speculation from my part.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: A Dutch heir(ess) to the throne cannot
: renounce his/her rights
:
: Yes, I have seen this claim being made
: repeatedly. There is a parallel to the
: Norweigan constitution in this regard, but
: it seems the texts are interpreted
: differently. I am not saying that the common
: interpretation repeated here is not correct,
: but could you please refer to scholars who
: agree with the common interpretation that a
: Dutch heir(ess) to the throne cannot
: renounce his/her rights, and are there any
: scholars who disagree?
:
: DTH
:
:
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread