Posted by Radu on 18/5/2008, 14:11:59, in reply to "Re: Oops = the above post is by Marlene"
89.136.181.58
--Previous Message--
: I was allready stunned how Rico could answer
: his own question in that way.
:
: Btw didn't the annullment of the Catholic
: marriage change the status of the children
: in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church?
: Something like no longer the product of
: adultry?
No, because their parents were never married in the Church ( and unfortunately couldn't do that anymore ).
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: Sorry, Rico ... didn't mean to put your name
: in the name box.
: --Previous Message--
: Rico,
:
: Caroline's children were in the line of
: succession from birth. Caroline was legally
: married to Stefano as the civil ceremony is
: the only legal wedding in Monaco. The
: children were legitimate according to
: Monagesque law. Caroline has only been
: married once in the Catholic church to
: JUnot. This marriage was annulled some
: years after the divorce. She was married in
: civil ceremonies to Stefano and to Ernst
: August. which are the legal and binding
: ceremonies. Jean-Raymond Gottlieb is the
: acknowledged father of Camille (and she has
: his last name). Camille, however, is not in
: line to the throne.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Surely this would now also apply to the
: birth
: of a child to a Swedish Princess now that
: they have succesional rights.
:
: As for Monagasque succession, as far as I'm
: aware it is naming the father that gave the
: Drucet children their succesional rights
: (Cammiles father is listed as unknown).
: Also, the marriage of the parents must have
: been legal in the eyes of the catholic
: church for the children to be deemed
: legitiamte, hence the Cassaragi children
: were not in line to the throne until after
: Philipe Junot gave Caroline the annulment.
: Alexandra of Hannover would not have been in
: line to the throne either if he (Philipe)
: had not agreed to the annulment eventhough
: Caroline was widowed when she married Ernst
: August.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Is Great Britain the only reigning European
: dynasty which excludes, from the succession,
: all persons born out of wedlock (and in
: addition their descendants, even if they
: themselves be born in lawful wedlock) --
: even if legitimized afterward by the
: marriages of their parents?
:
: I know that in Monaco, it's theoretically
: possible to be born out of wedlock, and
: hence not initially in the princely
: succession -- but retroactively inserted
: into the line to the throne through
: legitimization (meaning that the parents
: eventually marry). After all, this was
: precisely what happened to the children of
: Princess Stephanie by Daniel Ducruet.
:
: I'm wondering about the other houses ...
:
:
: If a Swedish Princes fathers a son out of
: wedlock, such a child could never have
: successional rights to the throne, even if
: its parents marries later. Successional
: rights in Sweden can never be regained.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread