Posted by Johan on 15/5/2008, 21:33:04, in reply to "Re: Renunciation of rights"
24.132.33.233
That would equal the exclusion bill option the Dutch constitution provides even though the origins are different.
--Previous Message--
: A law has to be passed. See art. 57.5 of the
: Spanish constitution
:
:
: http://www.casareal.es/laCorona/laCorona-iden-idweb.html
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: How would such a renunciation work? Would a
: letter to king and PM suffice or does the
: heir(ess) need to take an oath or sign a
: document in the presence of????
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Jane, Spanish dynasts can renounce their
: rights.
: And the elope theory is simply ridiculous,
: as I have explained several times.
:
: --Previous Message--
: A discussion on the British board reminds me
: to ask: is it true that -- strictly speaking
: -- it's not legally possible for dynasts in
: at least the reigning European houses to
: voluntarily renounce their succession rights
: (for themselves or fhtier descendants)?
: That they can only FORFEIT the said rights
: -- either through marrying in contravention
: to their relevant house laws or (if
: applicable) converting to forbidden
: religions?
:
: By which I mean: my understanding is that
: there is no way the Prince of the Asturias
: could have simply renounced his succession
: rights to the Spanish throne, whether for
: himself or his descendants. However, he
: could have forfeited the rights, had he
: married Letizia Ortiz Rosacalano against the
: explicit objections of both his sovereign
: father (King Juan Carlos I) and Parliament
: -- correct? Some have interpreted this law
: as meaning that in theory, Felipe could have
: eloped -- in spite of which his children
: could still inherit the throne ...
:
: Indeed, if one examines the annals of royal
: history, he will observe that a number of
: forfeitures (not renunciations) have indeed
: occurred -- typically for reasons of
: unapproved marriages (in the UK, of course,
: there have been legally approved marriages
: to Catholics. So while complying with the
: Royal Marriages Act, the unions have also
: been subject to the 1701 Act of Settlement.
: Accordingly, the dynasts would forfeit their
: own succession rights -- if not necessarily
: that of their descendants).
:
: The reason for my asking is that in 1986,
: several weeks after the birth of his
: illegitimate (later legitimized) daughter,
: Princess Marie Gabrielle (this title, with
: the qualification of Royal Highness, being
: enjoyed by the courtesy of her uncle, the
: current sovereign Grand Duke Henri), Prince
: Jean of Luxembourg did, in fact, voluntarily
: renounce his succession rights, for himself
: and all his descendants. And act of
: renunciation occurred even before his
: marriage to the mother, Helene Vestur: it
: goes without saying that no consent from the
: sovereign (back then, his own father, Grand
: Duke Jean) was sought or received, for the
: union.
:
: Yet, my understanding is that Jean forfeited
: his place in the grand ducal succession of
: Luxembourg even before the wedding -- which
: took place in 1987. Was this allowed? If
: so, is Luxembourg the exception to the rule
: (of European royalty)?
:
: Which I understand as meaning that normally,
: one can't simply renounce his succession
: rights at will ...
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread