Talk:Succession to the Monegasque throne
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to .If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Question: If Albert II dies without a legit son would the throne go to Caroline or Andrea, considering Andrea is the next male heir?
Question: if the Princess of Hanover predeceases her brother, who is first in line then ? Andrea or Stephanie ?
Andrea. He's ahead of Stephanie in the line of succession, and remains the son of the eldest daughter even if his mother dies. -- Curps 12:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From the Constitution of Monaco (see third paragraph):
- La succession au Trône, ouverte par suite de décès ou d'abdication, s'opère dans la descendance directe et légitime du Prince régnant, par ordre de primogéniture avec priorité masculine au même degré de parenté.
- A défaut de descendance directe et légitime, la succession s'opère au profit des frères et soeurs du Prince régnant et de leurs descendants directs et légitimes, par ordre de primogéniture avec priorité masculine au même degré de parenté.
- Si l'héritier qui aurait été appelé à monter sur le Trône en vertu des alinéas précédents est décédé ou a renoncé avant l'ouverture de la succession, la dévolution s'opère au profit de ses propres descendants directs et légitimes, selon l'ordre de primogéniture avec priorité masculine au même degré de parenté.
- Si l'application des paragraphes ci-dessus ne permet pas de pourvoir à la vacance du Trône, la succession s'opère au profit d'un collatéral désigné par le Conseil de la Couronne sur avis conforme du Conseil de régence. Les pouvoirs princiers sont provisoirement exercés par le Conseil de régence.
- La succession au Trône ne peut s'opérer qu'au profit d'une personne ayant la nationalité monégasque au jour de l'ouverture de la succession.
Question-2: So theoretically the Princess of Hanover could emulate her grandmother one of these days and the throne go directly to Andrea ...?
- Yes, as long as her brother dies without any surviving legitimate descendants. -- Curps 17:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Question-3: The article on Les Baux de Provence states that Caroline, Princess of Hanover is now Marquise des Baux. Is it really true (would mean that it is somewhat "automatic") or would it need a decision by the Prince Albert II to confer this title to his sister?
- Hmmm, actually I'm not sure if this is true... maybe it's reserved for Albert's own future firstborn son. I looked at http://www.palais.mc/ but there's no information. -- Curps 21:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In this case I think that it would be more prudent to remove that from Les Baux page... in addition that 'information' has propagated to the Albert II and to the Caroline page...
Hi. I just found this website, which looks sober enough. It's outdated since it still lists Rainier III as reigning prince, but it already takes into consideration Princely Law 1.249. The issue I see is that, as you will notice, it has Princess Antoinette and her descendants in line for succession.
Our article states that the Princess and her issue have been removed from the line of succession on the occasion of the accession of Albert II, but could still be eligible in case the throne falls vacant. Well, first it looks to me as a bit of a contradiction, since either you're excluded or you're still in line. If you've been excluded from succession, you can't be brought back bureaucratically because it may be convenient (or can it be?). More to the point, it may be that the Princess and her descendants have not actually been excluded from succession, but only bumped down in favor of all of Rainier's descendants, present and future. If that is the case, our article would need some rephrasing — although I have not read the Monegasque Constitution or Princely Law 1.249, so I could be misinterpreting all of this. Regards, Redux 18:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Antoinette and her descendants are indeed out of the line of succession, as of the death of Rainier. This doesn't mean that they are excluded or disqualified from ever sitting on the throne (as a Catholic would be for the British throne), it just means they're no longer on a list, where if all the people above you on the list die you automatically become the sovereign.
- The only way that they could ever conceivably reach the throne is if the entire current line of succession became empty and Albert died, in which case the Crown Council would have to meet as per the constitution to pick some relative out of the direct line (un collatéral in the words of the constitution), who must be of Monegasque nationality, as the new sovereign. In the event of this unlikely disaster, it seems entirely reasonable that the Crown Council would wish to pick someone from Antoinette's line, but they would indeed pick and choose the person of their choice... the succession of any specific person would not be automatic, because Antoinette and her descendants are no longer automatically ranked within the line of succession, and any one of them (or indeed all of them) could indeed be passed over. -- Curps 18:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do children not take the nationality of their father's ? I would have thought that the Ducruet children were French and therefore not eligible for succession.?
- Can't the Prince grant Monegasque citizenships to whomever he wants ?
I suppose you are right - he can do whatever he wants !
I believe that in a situation as with the children of Princess Stephanie, it would be most likely that the children would use the citizenship of the parent who is of a higher rank, this being Princess Stephanie. However it is possible that they have dual citizenship. ((Cooldoug111 02:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)))
I am watching the enthronement ceremony on TF1. They say it seems that there are doubts about the presence of Princess Alexandra in the list of succession because she is protestant. Catholicism is a state religion in Monaco.Hektor 09:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Does the Monaco constitution not say that a child must be born from a lawful, catholic marriage. This would mean that Alexandra is not in line, as her parents did not have a catholic wedding, nor could they, as in the eyes of the catholc church he is still married to his first wife.
- No, Monaco's constitution simply requires that successors to the throne be legitimately descended from the reigning Sovereign or be one of his/her dynastic siblings, or a legitimate descendant thereof. "Legitimately" means born of parents who, either at the time of or subsequent to their child's birth, have been lawfully married to one another -- neither having been legally married to another at the time of that birth. Legitimacy of children in no way depends upon the parents' marriage having been conducted or recognized by the Roman Catholic (or any other) church: civil marriage is sufficient (and, in Monaco, required) to determine a child's legitimacy dynastically. FactStraight (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
==Answer, Princess Alexandra of Hanover: She is indeed in line. religion has nothing to do with the throne really. The Monaco constitution only states that the parents must be married at one point or another in order for the child to be considered legitimate, etiher prior to the birth or after, and the wedding can either be civil or religious (or both. In the case of Alexandra, it was a civil marriage on 23 January 1999.). As is with the case of Louis and Pauline Ducruet, who were both born prior to the marriage of their parents, and their parents married a little over a year after Pauline's birth.
- No, if the parents were lawfully married but that marriage was terminated prior to the child's birth, then the child is not legitimate, and can only be legitimised by the parents' lawful re-marriage to one another subsequently. This marriage, termination of marriage and re-marriage with children born after the second marriage has happened in reigning dynasties at least twice: 1.The 1632 elopement of the widower Gaston, Duke of Orleans, younger brother of Louis XIII, with Princess Marguerite of Lorraine, was nullified by order of the King, who only relented and authorized the lovers to re-wed on his deathbead in 1643. 2.The 1779 marriage to a woman of the lower French nobility, Elisabeth Magon de Boisgarin, of Prince Eugenio of Savoy-Carignan, Count of Villafranca was dissolved by the Parlement of Brittany at the behest of his father, a cousin of the King of Sardinia, head of the House of Savoy, who likewise relented and allowed the couple to re-marry; otherwise Guiseppe di Savoia-Villafranca, known as the Chevalier de Savoy who was later de-morganatized and made a prince and HRH, would have been a bastard. Nor is the child legitimate if the parents were married only in a religious ceremony, unless the wedding took place in a jurisdiction (such as the UK, US, but not Monaco, France or Germany) which does not require a civil marriage in addition to (or instead of) religious nuptials. FactStraight (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The same also goes for Camille Gottlieb, Alexandre Coste and Jazmin Grace Grimaldi-in the unlikely case Stephanie confirms publicly who Camille's father is and marries him, she will be in line, and if Albert marries either Tamara or Nicole (mothers of his illegitimate children), they will also be in line. Jazmin Grace WAS NOT (I repeat: WAS NOT) a child of adultery-her mother's previous marriage to a tabloid photographer was a civil marriage, and was over before she met Albert, therefore there was no religious aspect for it, so in the "eyes of the church" she is a divorced non-catholic woman.
- No, Jazmin's mother's marriage was not legally and finally dissolved by divorce until 8 days after the birth of Albert II's daughter Jazmin (six months after the US court granted a divorce by decree nisi). Since it is irrelevant to legitimacy of birth in Monaco whether a lawful marriage is also religiously valid, it does not matter that Jazmin's mother and first husband were not married by the RC church. But it does matter that the marriage was still valid when Jazmin was born. While it is true that canon law does not acknowledge a Roman Catholic's dissolved civil marriage to have been valid for purposes of re-marriage within the RC Church (that's why Felipe, Prince of Asturias was able to canonically marry the civilly married and divorced Letizia Ortiz), but what is applicable here is Monegasque law -- not Vatican law. FactStraight (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Princess Stephanie is currently married to Mathieu Snaet ...? where is the evidence to support this this ? Palace officials have consistently denied that a marriage took place.
Elizabeth-Anne de Massy was born on 13th January 1947. Her parents were married in December 1951. She was legitimized by her parents marriage and therefore eligible to succeed.
- Thanks. That should probably be made clear. I'll try to do that. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
French Treaty Issues
It seems someone should explain the historical and possible present treaty issues. There was some issue as to who could inherit the thrown without the country reverting to France under treaty.--CSvBibra 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I read here that Charlotte is fourth in line, but the page says the fourth is Alexandra (and Charlatte is note named at all in the page). Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Today at the broadcast from the wedding someone on the Dutch television explained who the people in the line of succesion were. He said that princess Alexandra is higher in the line than her brother Andrea because her father has a higher rank than his father. He said that she is the second in line after her mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Jazmin Grace Grimaldi
Jazmin Grace Grimaldi Would be eligible for the throne if Prince Albert ever married her mother as she, like the others, is considered illegitimate. Tamara was divorced at the time.
The idea that he will marry Tamara isn't likely though, especially now being married to Charlene.
Besides the fact that there is nothing in the laws and constitution of Monaco stating that an offspring of an affair cannot inherit the throne. If that were the case, then the Casiraghis would be excluded permanently as their mother was married prior to the marriage with Stefano, and the marriage wasn't annulled until after Stefano's death, in 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTracy2011 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- No. A person born to parents who were not married to each other at the time of birth does not have any Monegasque succession rights unless legitimised by his or her parents' subsequent marriage, which is possible only if the child was not born adulterously (article 227 of the Monegasque Civil Code states: "Les enfants nés hors mariage, autres que les enfants adultérins, sont légitimés par le mariage subséquent de leurs père et mère, lorsque ceux-ci les ont légalement reconnus avant leur mariage ou qu'ils les reconnaissent au moment de la célébration." while art. 229 states: "Les enfants légitimés par le mariage subséquent auront les mêmes droits que s'ils étaient nés de ce mariage"). Louis Ducruet and Pauline Ducruet as well as Sasha Casiraghi have been legitimised by their parents' subsequent marriages. FactStraight (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Fact check: Again, I state: Tamara was DIVORCED from a CIVIL Bold textmarriage. If what you state is true, then the Casiraghis, and Princess Alexandra are not in line either as Caroline was previously married to someone else and did not marry either of their fathers religiously. Religion has nothing to do with the act of succession, nor does adultery. The Civil Code has nothing to do with the succession. I repeat: The Civil Code has nothing to do with the succession, which is covered under the Constitution. Also: Sacha SANTO DOMINGO is not Andrea's son, nor his Andrea married. There has been no official announcements in regards to either, the only "source" is TABLOIDS, which aren't reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop shouting. The article does not say and no one has suggested that Roman Catholic canon or any other religious requirements are applicable to Monaco's succession, which is entirely secular. Therefore, the prior marriages of Princesses Caroline and Stephanie are not relevant to their children's eligibility to inherit Monaco's throne: only their mothers' marital status at the time of or subsequent to the birth of their children matters and whether or not any of their children was born adulterously. Monaco's Constitution, Article 10:La succession au Trône, ouverte par suite de décès ou d'abdication, s'opère dans la descendance directe et légitime du Prince régnant, par ordre de primogéniture avec priorité masculine au même degré de parenté. "Legitimate" is used yet not defined in Monaco's Constitution, but is defined in Monaco's Civil Code, which is why children whose parents' marry subsequent to their birth may be retroactively legitimised -- the Civil Code specifies that this is so. However, that Civil Code also imposes a restriction: the child may only be legitimated by subsequent marriage if neither parent was legally married at the time of the child's birth. This is not a new definition or restriction on the concept of legitimacy, but is as old as the Code Napoleon, and is a secular, not a canonical restriction. Albert's eldest known child was apparently conceived while the mother was separated from her husband. After she became pregnant, she initiated a divorce which was not contested by her then-husband, and was granted by a San Diego court. However, a decree nisi was issued, meaning that the divorce did not come into legal effect for six months. Six months after the court's official ruling was eight days after Jazmin Grimaldi was born. Although the mother's husband never claimed that the child born during the marriage was his, the child was born while her mother was married to someone other than her father. The relevant divorce decree is a matter of public record and is easily verified, although the newspaper publication of it has been expunged from Wikipedia when Wikipedia's article on the mother was deleted. FactStraight (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Your "fact straight" account needs to get their facts straight. 1. Jazmin has just as much right to the throne as her brother or cousin. 2. Sacha Santo Domingo has nothing to do with the Grimaldi throne. Never has, never will. 3. Monaco's Civil Code has nothing to do with the succession laws. It only covers the INHERITANCE (as in the money, not the crown). 4. Monaco's succession laws differ from the Civil Code. The Civil Code does not have anything to do with succesion, never has, never will. 4. Tamara Rotolo was vacationing in July 1991 to celebrate her divorce being finalized. The Divorce was finalized before she even boarded a flight to Monaco. 5. The information you have is sourced from a tabloid, not public records. Tabloids are not reliable sources. 6. The way you have it written and keep correcting my information as such, YES, you are implying that Cathoicism Does have something to do with the throne, when the fact is that it does not. 7. What information you have is inaccurate and completely disrespectful. Please do not edit my corrections again, the information I have is 100% accurate. The information you have is completely unverifiable, a quick Google search results in my information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Given as your "100% accurate" information allows you to continue to believe that Andrea and Tatiana aren't married despite the fact that it was well publicized, I would question it. Psunshine87 (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC) News flash: a tabloid is not reliable information. There has been no announcements from the palace itslef regarding Andrea and Tatiana, which is a sign that it was all for publicity and nothing more. Unless it comes from the palace itself, it is not accurate information, which none of the sources regarding them or "Sacha" have come from the palace. As for your citing of a "civil code", that code became invalid in 2002 with the changes of the constitution, besides the fact that she is not of an adultery relationship-Tamara was divorced from a civil marriage at the time of her conception. Jazmin has the same chances as her younger half brother and cousin. If what you say is fact, then The Casiraghis and Ducruets do not have succession rights either as their parents were either not married prior to their births or had been previously married without an annulment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:1600:18D0:A0AF:95D8:B15A:D74A (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Princess Carolines's marriage to Philippe Junot was dissolved legally. After that she married her second husband Stephano Cassiraghi. The children of that marriage are legitimate when it comes to the succession to the throne. The RC church has no competence in these matters. Jazmin Grace is at this point not entitled to succeed nor will she ever be. Not even when the reigning Prince will marry her mother. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's only a wiki, but here his name is given as Alexandre Andrea Stefano Casiraghi Santo Domingo. Here is another source. -- Perrak (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Prince Albert II's heir to be born
The Princess of Monaco is pregnant. Isn't it appropriate to signal this pregnancy at the line of succession. I know Princess Caroline is still the first person in line, but if for some reason the Prince dies before the birth of the child, the throne will be vacant until it and the child becomes Prince or Princess automatically. I mean, this pregnancy is crucial for the line of succession.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you assume that the throne would be vacant? I see no such thing in the Constitution. Le décès ou l'abdication du Prince régnant entraîne dévolution immédiate de la Couronne au profit du Prince Héréditaire... This actually implies the opposite, as Caroline is still the hereditary princess. Caroline might ascend and reign until the birth of the child. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't understand that idea of a first-in-line assuming the throne after the death of the titular, knowing that a posthumous child who would overtake the first-in-line will be born soon. Why isn't the child to be born already the successor? I find this confusing and that's why I'm asking this here at the talk page.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Wild hypothetical here, be warned. Albert and Charlene are expecting their first child around December of this year. That child automatically becomes first in line, as defined by Monaco's laws of succession.
What would happen if Albert and Charlene divorced and Albert married Alexandre's mother? As Alexandre is older than Albert and Charlene's child, and would be legitimated by his parent's marriage, would he become first in line?
PrsGoddess187 14:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, as current Monégasque law is written. And it is by no means a scenario that has not been suggested, debated and wondered about in online forums and, no doubt, at the Princely Court of Monte Carlo. Albert ended his 5-year relationship with Mlle Coste only after introducing her to his father at a restaurant and evoking an appalled reaction from Rainier III which was visible/audible to other diners. She got pregnant months after that break-up, during a "for-old-times-sake" tryst, Albert didn't marry for another six years, and is only now expecting a child by his wife. Albert's been admirably -- if belatedly -- candid about it. FactStraight (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
If someone was to stumble across this article without prior knowledge of the topic, like I did, it would be beneficial to be clearer in the lead than we are at present. @Surtsicna:. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)