Posted by José on 14/5/2008, 17:24:07, in reply to "Re: Renunciation of rights"
83.132.163.65
--Previous Message--
: 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