Talk:Line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg

Are the Grand Duke's cousin Prince Robert and his children not in the line of succession? Should we add Prince Dedo of Saxony? Is he followed by his nephew Rüdiger Prinz von Sachsen, and by Rüdiger's sons? What would happen to the succession if there were no dynastic male line descendants of any of William IV's daughters? john k 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgian

Also, is "Luxembourgian" a word? john k 13:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook gives the adjective as "Luxembourg". Charles 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we move to Line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg, perhaps? That seems the most natural way of putting it. john k 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem the most natural to me but some corners may oppose as all of the articles are similarly named (just playing the devil's advocate). I would go for it though, yes. Charles 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgian is indeed a word and all other articles are similarily named, so if you want to move this one, I'd prefer to have all other similar articles moved to the "throne of ..." format, as well. —Nightstallion (?) 19:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any support for "Luxembourgian" being a word? john k 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries. Merriam-Webster, Random House, WordNet, and American Heritage Dictionary all use 'Luxembourgian' as the adjectival form of 'Luxembourg'. As such, it has been adopted as the Wikipedia convention (see WikiProject Luxembourg). Bastin 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So they do. It's a deeply unfortunate word, though. john k 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a most fortunate word. It means that one doesn't get confused between the country (Luxembourg), the demonym (Luxembourger), the language (Luxembourgish), and the adjective (Luxembourgian). Very few countries are so fortunate. Bastin 00:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if many of those forms were the same, context avoids confusion. It still is a most unfortunate word. Charles 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst there is no doubt that context often avoids confusion (particularly vis-à-vis the country name), it is not necessarily true in the other cases. What does 'Dutch book' mean? A book written in Dutch or written by a Dutch person? With Luxembourgian versus Luxembourgish, it's explicit, yet the words maintain the same root, so the meaning is obvious and unambiguous (unlike Dutch, British, American, and so on). Bastin 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The page was moved by another user without discussion, contrary to conventions, and an administrator is required to move it back. Whilst there is disagreement about what the adjectival form of 'Luxembourg' is - whether it is 'Luxembourgian', 'Luxembourgish', or 'Luxembourg' - Wikipedia:WikiProject Luxembourg has decided that standardisation about one or another is important, and that the chosen form is 'Luxembourgian'. The capitalisation of the 't' is uncontroversial, as it matches the lines of succession for other countries, as well as being the name before this move. Bastin 11:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How about getting WikiProject Luxembourg to follow an EU publication rather than arbitrarily deciding and then holding the rest of Wikipedia hostage to their decisions? Charles 12:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

EU publications aren't law. In the absence of a legally-mandated term, in English, one usually relies on what is called a dictionary to define words. Since, in this case, dictionaries don't agree, and don't prescribe one word over another, we have prescribed one to ensure uniformity. We're not holding the 'rest of Wikipedia hostage'; we're editing articles only about Luxembourg. And, since we're the people that are writing those articles to begin with, that means we're enforcing internal discipline in naming conventions. Bastin 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no ownership of articles. Also, try a quick search of luxembourgish site:*.lu and luxembourgian site:*.lu and compare the number of English language results you get from each search, which searchs all sites with the top level domain .lu. Charles 12:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Luxembourg does not seem to have discussed this particular issue. The Oxford English Dictionary says that Luxembourgeois is the adjective "of or pertaining to Luxemb(o)urg or to its inhabitants". The OED does not list "Luxembourgian" or "Luxembourgish" (although it does list "Luxemburgisch" for the language). Since there is such dispute about this point, I suggest that the appropriate name for this page is "Line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg" (in spite of the fact that the other line of succession pages use an adjectival form - at least now that somebody has changed them all). Noel S McFerran 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer Luxembourgish as that's the term I learned to use as a native Luxembourger. But I also think we need consistency between articles, which Bastin has enforced very well so far. At this point I'd recommend moving this article back to it's original designation until we can find a consensus for all Luxembourg related articles and entries. Maybe we should move this discussion to the Project's talk page (I only noticed the discussion by chance taking a glimpse at Bastin's talkpage).--Caranorn 15:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not consistent... However, I do think all of the other entries should be moved to "Luxembourgish" as "Luxembourgian" is a very rare thing to hear to these English ears. What you were taught about "Luxembourgish" being the adjective is seemingly most correct. Charles 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy to see a debate about this, and by all means move this to the WikiProject page. However, I think that, until and unless a change is agreed across the board, it shouldn't be done piecemeal. Bastin 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Noel. "throne of Luxembourg" is the best idea here. john k 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support "throne of Luxembourg", as above. If the project finds evidence that Luxembourgeois is most common in English, fine; but we shouldn't be making stuff up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment there was no talk of luxembourgeois which obviously is not an english term, rather the dispute is between luxembourgish and luxembourgian, neither of which seems to be made up.--Caranorn 11:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that neither of those terms appears in the Oxford English Dictionary (as opposed to luxembourgeois which does) surely counts for something. It would seem, however, that there is not an established adjectival term in English for Luxembourg. Another common usage is merely to use the noun as an adjective (e.g. "Luxembourg exports"). Noel S McFerran 11:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support "throne of Luxembourg", as above. -Ulla 08:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Line of succession to the Luxembourgish throne to Line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Equal primogeniture

The last paragraph of the "Succession law" paragraph seem to make some or all of the preceding paragraphs in the section out of date. Someone who understands this more than me should sort this out. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Prince Robert of Luxembourg / Princess Sophie of Luxembourg's descendants

Did Prince Robert or his father, Prince Charles, have renounced their rights to the throne? If not, why there is no information whether they are eligible to inherit the throne or not? And next I think there's the male-line descendants of Princess Sophie, youngest sister of Grand Duchesses Marie-Adélaïde and Charlotte (as the other sisters either died without issue or their male lines are extinct). Does anyone know something about this? 84.91.100.44 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there any indications that they are in the line? I am especially uncertain about Sophie's descendants. Don't marriages need to be approved? Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit odd but I read somewhere that the members of the Grand Ducal Family don't have to renounce their rights if they fail to get approval for their marriages, and that Prince Louis and Prince Jean renounced because they already had a child born out of wedlock and if they kept their own rights, those children would be always excluded, unlike all the children born after the marriage. As for Princess Sophie, I'm just saying that surely it is her descendants the next male-line (considering the exception given to the daughters of Grand Duke Guillaume IV) relatives of the Grand Ducal Family. Also, if I'm right and there's no need of marriage approval, Princess Sophie's descendants are not excluded either. Again, I'm not 100% sure too, so this needs to be discussed further. 84.91.100.44 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So, the possible "extended" line of succession would be this:

• HRH Grand Duke Guillaume IV (1852-1912)
  • HRH Grand Duchess Charlotte (1896-1985)
    • HRH Grand Duke Jean (b. 1921)
      • HRH The Grand Duke (Henri; b. 1955)
        • (1) HRH The Hereditary Grand Duke (Prince Guillaume; b. 1981)
        • (2) HRH Prince Félix (b. 1984)
        • (3) HRH Princess Alexandra (b. 1991)
        • (4) HRH Prince Sébastien (b. 1992)
      • (5) HRH Prince Guillaume (b. 1963)
        • (6) HRH Prince Paul Louis of Nassau (b. 1998)
        • (7) HRH Prince Léopold of Nassau (b. 2000)
        • (8) HRH Prince Jean André of Nassau (b. 2004)
    • HRH Prince Charles (1927-1977)
      • (9) HRH Prince Robert (b. 1968)
        • (10) HRH Prince Alexandre of Nassau (b. 1997)
        • (11) HRH Prince Frederik of Nassau (b. 2002)
  • HRH Princess Sophie of Saxony (1902-1941)
    • HRH Prince Timo of Saxony (1923-1982)
      • (12) HRH The Margrave of Meissen (Rüdiger; b. 1953)
        • (13) HRH Prince Daniel of Saxony (b. 1975)
        • (14) HRH Prince Arne of Saxony (b. 1977)
        • (15) HRH Prince Nils of Saxony (b. 1978)
          • (16) HRH Prince Moritz of Saxony (b. 2009)

84.91.100.44 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but that is only if there is no requirement for the marriages to be approved. I find it hard to believe that there are no such requirements. Surtsicna (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so we can keep this "extended" line here in the talk page unless some information comes up and we can put this one on the main page or delete it completely. 84.91.100.44 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I found this very well written article regarding the issue of Prince Robert and it defends that the fact that he married without consent didn't necessarily lead to his renounciation to his rights to the throne. Prince Louis and Prince Jean renounced because they wanted to, not because of their marriages. As for Princess Sophie's branch, The Margrave of Meissen's parents' marriage was surely morganatic, so it's highly unprobable that he could have rights to the throne.--84.90.159.15 (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is this: http://lux-arazzi.blogspot.pt/2009/09/madame-de-nassau-becomes-princess-tessy.html --84.90.159.15 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur that I do not know of any European throne that does not require its princes and princesses to obtain prior consent from the Sovereign and/or government to marry. In monarchies where absolute primogeniture has been implemented, those required to obtain consent to wed presumably extends to descendants in the male and female line ad infinitum. But in those realms that still practice Salic, semi-Salic or male-preferred primogeniture (Commonwealth Realms, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Spain), only those with succession rights through the male-line of descent from a sovereign need authorization to marry. Thus Ruediger von Sachsen's claim isn't vitiated, since he is not a male-line descendant of a Luxembourgeois monarch. FactStraight (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but the thing is that Luxembourg had Salic law until Grand Duke William IV, who had only daughters, gave in 1907 succession rights to all his daughters and their male-line issue, so the Salic law continued to be used, only with that exception for William IV's daughters. Rüdiger, Margrave of Meissen is the only male-line grandson (and the only grandson overall) of Princess Sophie, William IV's youngest daughter, so I think the Salic law applies to him as it applies to everyone in the Grand Ducal Family except for Grand Duke Henri's children and beyond. And if Rüdiger's parents' marriage was considered morganatic in Saxony, quite surely it was also considered as such in Luxembourg.--84.90.159.15 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It is marriage without consent, not morganatic marriage, that deprives a person of succession rights to the throne of Luxembourg. I doubt Rüdiger or his father or his sons sought permissions to marry, but the question is whether the permissions were required. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It was both that were necessary originally, but now it appears that consent is all that is required. On the same basis (Article 42 of the Nassau Erbverein), my understanding is that Luxembourg's succession was semi-Salic, not Salic. Both with respect to marriages and the order of succession, the Congress of Vienna didn't create Luxembourg with specific laws or rules on these matters, rather it simply pegged the grandduchy's succession to the Nassau Family Pact (Treaty of Congress of Vienna: Art. 71. Le droit et l'ordre de succession établi entre les deux branches de la maison de Nassau par l'acte de 1783, dit Nassauischer Erbverein, est maintenu et transféré des quatre principautés d'Orange-Nassau au grand-duché de Luxembourg.), which already contained provisions for semi-Salic succession and excluded morganauts (Karl Philip von Biburg, Count von Weilnau 1746-89, of the Nassau-Usingen branch) from the Pact when executed. Luxembourg passed to the Weilburg branch of the Nassaus from the Netherlands in 1890 and then from Guillaume IV to Marie Adélaïde pursuant to semi-Salic law, the grandduchy's 1906 succession law (affirming exclusion of the Counts von Merenberg) merely being confirmatory in that respect. Ruediger and his descendants are excluded because, like illegitimate issue, they were not considered valid members of the dynastic family into which Sophie married by German Privatfürstenrecht. FactStraight (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Luxembourg succession was always Salic until 2011, except for Grand Duke William IV's daughters. There is even an explanation in this article why it technically wasn't semi-Salic. In practice, William IV's daughters were treated as sons, but only them. William IV took that decision not because he wanted to confirm an eventual semi-Salic law. He reportedly wanted to avoid the Luxembourg's throne to fall on that morganatic branch of the Nassau family. About Prince Robert, it is relevant to emphasize that Prince Louis renounced on his wedding and he already had a child from Princess Tessy, Prince Jean renounced months before his wedding and he also already had a child from Hélène. Maybe that (having already illegitimate children) was the reason for the voluntary renounciations and not the marriages in themselves. Prince Robert, on the other hand, as long as we know, never renounced and there's no evidence that his marriage would necessarily lead him to renounciation. It seems like Prince Louis and Prince Jean renounced in order to avoid eventual controversy of any kind as sons of Grand Dukes, and Prince Robert did not because he was a more distant and obscure member of the family, he's only a grandson of a Grand Duchess. I'm only supposing, but to me there's no evidence that Prince Robert was ever excluded from the line of succession.--84.90.159.15 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree on the original order of succession, the Luxembourg grandduchy's succession was semi-Salic, per documents already cited above: 1. Treaty of Congress of Vienna: Art. 71. Le droit et l'ordre de succession établi entre les deux branches de la maison de Nassau par l'acte de 1783, dit Nassauischer Erbverein, est maintenu et transféré des quatre principautés d'Orange-Nassau au grand-duché de Luxembourg. 2. Article 42 of the Nassauischer Erbverein, "Da übrigens auch Zwey und vierzigstens der Fall möglich ist, welchen jedoch der Allerhöchste gnädiglich abwenden wolle, dass Unser ganzer Nassauischer Mannstamm erlöschen möchte, so lassen Wir es in Ansehung derer jeweilen existirenden Töchter, bey dem von solchen geleisteten, auch künftig und zu ewigen Tagen zu leistenden unbedingten Verzicht, ohne Vorbehalt einiger Regredienterbschaft bewenden, verbinden Uns, setzen, ordnen und wollen demnach, dass in solchem Falle eine Tochter und zwar, wann deren mehrere vorhanden, dies Erstgebohrne, oder in deren Mangel die nächste Erbin des letzten Mannstammes, mit Ausschluss aller andern entfernteren, zur Succession berufen seyn solle, es wäre dann, dass Wir oder Unsere Nachkommen auf sochen Fall anders übereingekommen wären, oder sonstige Vorsehung gethan hälten, als welches zu thun Wir Ihnen und Uns hiermit ausdrucklich vorbehalten, fort Unsere und Unserer Nachkommen respective Töchter und Erben zur Festhaltung einser sochen Vorsehung Kraft dieses verbunden haben wollen." With respect to forfeiture of succession rights, while it has often ben the case for princes and princesses contracting non-dynastic marriages to renounce their personal claim on the throne, neither German Privatfürstenrecht nor dynastic tradition expected it. Although the Habsburgs and (from 1911) the Romanovs made recognition of a morganatic marriage by the Sovereign conditional upon the dynast's renunciation, they were exceptional in doing so and dynasts always had the right to refuse (e.g., Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia). Although it is a common misperception, until the 20th century it was rare for a dynast to forfeit personal succession rights merely because he or she married morganatically. However sovereigns, aware that the dynast might one day inherit the throne and then try to retro-demorganatize their offspring, it was common to exchange the monarch's recognition of the morganatic marriage in return for the dynast's renounciation of personal as well as hereditary succession rights (e.g., Princess Irina of Russia, Prince Aage of Denmark, Duke Ludwig of Württemberg). So we may simply not know the personal reasons which prompted some Luxembourg princes to renounce while others didn't, regardless, their issue born of non-dynastic unions remain excluded from the succession unless some other act or law dynasticizes them. FactStraight (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)