Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - KentKim

Pages: [1] 2 3
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall Part II
« on: December 11, 2006, 05:00:44 AM »
It kind of reminds me of Queen Victoria and her son, Edward VIII. He only ruled from 1901-1910, because Victoria lived so long.

Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich / Re: education
« on: September 14, 2006, 01:25:54 PM »
In regards to the tutors he had...not being very distinquished, is it possible the tutors chosen had to do with Alexei's illness, and keeping it a secret?  After all if the tutors were just average people, they could be more easily kept from spilling the secret if they found out. idk, it made sense in my seems like what i just wrote made no sense.

The Windsors / Re: Balcony Pictures
« on: November 08, 2005, 09:19:51 AM »
Didn't they hang Margaret over the balcony to show her to the people since she wasn't seen offen, and people thought the family was hiding her away because there was something wrong with her?

Having Fun! / Re: Has anyone did  a project on the IF when they
« on: October 29, 2005, 06:00:56 PM »
I started reading books on the IF during middle school and i did quite a few projects on them during High school

Freshman year:

A project on Hemophilia for honors Biology, and i got extra pts for the historical connection to the royal connections.

Then i did a project on the book N+A for English, and for a prop i made a photo album like the ones the family made.  

Sophomore Year:

I wrote a poem about Alexandra for Creative Writing class

I wrote a narritive about the jewels in the corsets for Literature

I guess that's it, i don't think i did any in Junior yr or Senior yr.  

BeNeLux Royalty / Re: Philippe & Mathilde, Duke and Duchess of Brabant
« on: October 08, 2005, 10:53:51 AM »
Is Emmanuel a common/popular name in Belgium?

It seems rather old-fashioned to me...

BeNeLux Royalty / Re: Children of Leopold III
« on: August 13, 2005, 01:42:05 AM »
The issue of the Baels children  is quite the complicated one, concerning several Belgian laws and such:

So lets map out why the validity of the Baels children is such a contested issue:

- the validity of the marriage is contested, and here's why:

= Article 85 of the Belgian constitution states that "any act of the king, including his own consent to his marriage, must be countersigned"

and this never occured, as the lawful government was in London at the time.

Therefore:  Leopold no longer had a right to reign after the marriage.

But here's where it gets tricky.

- He didn't cease to reign in 1941.
- the recall of the king by the two houses on 20 July 1950 would in any case fulfill the third paragraph of article 85, thus restoring Leopold III's rights and those of his issue

But in many's minds: Leopold III's "marriage" to Liliane Baels was null and void in law,
thus, their children are illegitimate;
therefore, they are excluded from the succession to the Belgian throne by article 85, paragraph 1 (restriction to the legitimate descent of Leopold I).

Now if that seems confusing here's where it gets even worse: the question of "what is the act of a king...?"

Marriage is not an act of the king within the meaning of art. 106 ("no act of the king can have any effect unless countersigned by a minister who, by that alone, takes responsibility for that act": current numbering really article 85)
It cannot be claimed that every single act of the king needs to be countersigned (he can breathe, for example, on his own).  Nor can it be claimed that every signed document needs a countersignature: I am sure his private correspondence is free of ministers' signatures.  Is it that every legal document signed by the king must bear a minister's signature?  That means a member of government must be present every time the king writes a check, signs a credit card slip, makes a deed.  Such strictures on his private life (and waste of government's time) are unthinkable.

So what defines an "act of the king" within the plain meaning of article 106?  The article immediately preceding, article 105: "the king has no powers other than those formally bestowed on him by the constitution of specific laws passed by virtue of the self-same constitution."

What are those powers? Searching through the constitution, one finds that the king: summons and closes sessions of the legislative, dissolves both houses, carries out the census and reapportionment, consents to marriage of princes, restores dynastic rights of those who married without consent, appoints and dismisses ministers, commissions officers of the armed forces, appoints civil servants and diplomats, judges and prosecutors, sanctions laws, issues regulations for their application, reduces or annuls sentences, mint coins, confers titles and decorations, carries out foreign policy, is commander in chief, declares state of war and peace, signs treaties.

An "act of the king" is just that: the king as king exercising his constitutional powers.  No legal action of the king described, required, mandated, or allowed in the constitution can have any effect without countersignature.  Signing a check is not an act of the king; it is an act of the citizen who happens to be king but is also a private individual (e.g., he owns property in his name, is paid a civil list, spends it as he pleases).

Is marriage an "act of the king"?  It has dynastic, therefore political consequences.  But is it described anywhere in the Constitution?  No (no more than signing checks).  There can be only two conclusions:

-the king cannot marry (or sign checks)
-the king can marry (and sign checks), without countersignature.

The first is absurd, so the second follows.
But let's suppose that the marriage could be construed as falling under article 106.  Does the absence of countersignature make it void?

(2) Marriage does not require a signature
Marriage is a civil contract, described in Book I, Title V of the Belgian Civil Code (arts. 144 to 227).  Chapter I deals with the prerequisites, chapter II with the formalities, chapter III with opposing claims, chapter IV with annulments.  Title II deals with acts of the Etat Civil, and Chapter III describes the way a marriage takes place (arts. 63 to 76).  In particular, article 75 says: "on the appointed day, the public officer in the townhall and before two witnesses receives from each party successively the statement that they want to become husband and wife, he declares, in the name of the law, that they are united in marriage, and he draws up the act immediately".

It is the exchange of consent before witnesses and following the requisite steps that makes the marriage contract.  The "acte" which the officer then writes out is a document that attests to the existence of the marriage, but does not make it.  The marriage is perfected once the public officer has spoken, the act is nothing but evidence (see Répertoire pratique du Droit Belge, s.v. mariage). Invalidity of that document does not void the marriage.

(3) The act of marriage does not require a signature
Article 39, part of the general dispositions on how acts of the etat civil are to be drawn up, says: "these acts shall be signed by the public officer, by the parties and the witnesses, or mention shall be made of the cause that prevents parties and witnesses from signing."

(4) A void, defective, or missing "acte de mariage" does not invalidate a marriage
How do we know that?

invalidity of the document is not a ground for annulment listed in chapter IV.  Therefore, the marriage of Leopold III and Liliane Baels cannot be declared void on that basis.
the existence of the act is not essential to the marriage, because article 46 states: "If there were no registers, or if they have been lost, proof will be given by documents and witnesses; and in those cases, marriages, births and deaths shall be proven by the registers and documents coming from deceased parents, and by witnesses."
But what of article 194, which says: "no one can claim the status of spouse and the civil effects of marriage, if he does not present an act inscribed on the register of the etat civil," except in cases described in article 46. To this one can oppose article 196 which means in substance that neither spouse can have the act declared null when there is a recognized de facto situation of marriage (possession d'état). The interpretation of that clause (Répertoire pratique du droit belge, vol. 7, p. 841) is that a de facto situation of marriage (where the spouses have publicly lived as husband and wife and taken as such by everyone) is sufficient to overcome any formal defect of the act of marriage, such as being drawn on a loose sheet instead of on the official registers, or the absence of the signature of the public officer. If the lack of that signature (prescribed by law) can be compensated by the notoriety of the marriage, so can the lack of any other signature.

(5) The issue of a putative marriage without act is still legitimate
And what of article 195 says: "A de facto situation of marriage cannot dispense the alleged spouses who shall cite it to present the act of marriage to the public officer"?  Even if it is well known that the two are married, and are considered as such and behave as such, they still must cite the original act in order to claim the "civil effects" of their marriage.  Do such "civil effects" include the legitimacy of the issue?

Article 197 says: "If, however, in the cases of articles 194 and 195, there are children born of the individuals who have lived publicly as husband and wife, and who are both dead, the filiation of the children cannot be contested under the sole pretext of a lack of presentation of the act of marriage whenever that filiation is proven by de facto recognition and is not contrary to the statements of the act of birth."

So the issue can be legitimate even in the absence of an act of marriage.

So... "if"
The king's marriage is not an "act of the king" that falls under article 106.  Even if it were, a signature is not needed, either for the marriage itself, or for the act of marriage, so no countersignature is needed.  Even if it were, the marriage is not void.  Even if it were without effect, the issue is legitimate.

In any case it's all opinion, how to interpret laws, marriage, and in this case the three children who could/couldn't rule if the matter came up, and are/aren't legitimate child.

I'm sure Belgium is thankful that there are so many desendents of Albert II that this will never be a issue over who has the right to rule and who doesn't.

Well due to her visits to Russia, China, and Poland, she became known as the "Red Queen"

Some info on her:

Mette-Marit is the youngest child of Sven Olav Bjarte Høiby and Marit Tjessem. She has two brothers and one sister: Espen, Per and Kristin.

The Crown Princess grew up in Kristiansand. When she was eleven years old her parents divorced, she stayed with her mother.

Mette-Marit studied at the Oderness Gymnasium, she also went to Australia for half a year to study, before finishing high school at kathedralschool in Kristiansand in 1994.

During the following years, Mette-Marit tried several studies and was frequently seen in the Oslo party scene, which involded drugs and alcohol.

On January 13th, 1997 she gave birth to Marius Borg Høiby, her son with Morton Borg, who has been convicted of assault and drugs dealing.

The birth of her son changed Mette-Marit's live. As a single mother, she brought up her son, worked as a waitress and enrolled at Oslo university again.

In 1999 she met Haakon at a concert in Kristiansand. After a year, the went living together. The couple got engaged on December 1st, 2000 and married on August 25th the next year.

It seems the birth of Marius changed her life for the better eh? Chances are if he hadn't been born, she wouldn't be in the position she is today...

When was the last time an 'age of queens' would have occurred?

I would gather it would have been in the second half of the 16th century, with Elizabeth I ruling England, Mary Queen of Scots ruling Scotland, and with Catherine de Medici essentially ruling France after her husband died.

palimpsest:  thank you for the pics

Quite the cute kid!

The Tudors / Re: Anna of Cleves
« on: July 28, 2005, 01:48:57 PM »
She grew to enjoy English ale and gambling; she spent large sums on gowns; she visited with the king's children and occasionally the king himself.  She was heard to remark that she was more attractive than Katharine Parr, to whom the king's attention turned in 1543.  In fact, upon Catherine Howard's execution in 1542, rumors circulated that perhaps the king would take back his former bride.  The French ambassador was suitably impressed with Anne's handling of a delicate situation, observing that 'all her affairs could never make her utter a word by which one might suppose that she was discontented.'

Maria Nikolaievna Romanov, Grand Duchess of Russia was the daughter of Nikolai I Pavlovich Romanov, Tsar of Russia and Friederike Luise Charlotte Wilhelmine Prinzessin von Preußen. She was born circa 18 August 1819 [6 Aug 1819 O.S.] at Pavlovsk, Russia. She married, firstly, Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duc de Leuchtenberg, son of Eugène de Beauharnais, 1st Duc de Leuchtenberg and Auguste Prinzessin von Bayern, on 14 July 1839 [2 July 1839 O.S.] at St. Petersburg, Russia. She married, secondly, Count Grigorii Aleksandrovich Strogonov on 4 November 1856. She died circa 21 February 1876 [9 Feb 1876 O.S.] at St. Petersburg.
    She gained the title of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaievna of Russia. As of 14 July 1839, her married name was de Beauharnais. As of 4 November 1856, her married name was Strogonov.  

Children of Maria Nikolaievna Romanov, Grand Duchess of Russia and Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duc de Leuchtenberg:

Alexandra von Leuchtenburg  b. 9 Apr 1840, d. 12 Aug 1843

Maria Herzogin von Leuchtenberg  b. 16 Oct 1841, d. 16 Feb 1914

She was born on 16 October 1841 at St. Petersburg, Russia. She married Ludwig Wilhelm Prinz von Baden, son of Leopold I Großherzog von Baden and Sophie Wilhelmine von Holstein-Gottorp, Princess of Sweden, on 11 February 1863 at St. Petersburg. She died on 16 February 1914 at age 72.
She gained the title of Herzogin von Leuchtenberg.  

Children of Maria Herzogin von Leuchtenberg and Ludwig Wilhelm Prinz von Baden:
  • Marie Prinzessin von Baden   b. 26 Jul 1865, d. 29 Nov 1939
    Maximilian Alexander Friedrich Wilhelm Prinz von Baden+   b. 10 Jul 1867, d. 6 Nov 1929

Nicholas Herzog von Leuchtenburg Prince Romanovsky b. 4 Aug 1843, d. 6 Jan 1891

He was born on 4 August 1843 at Sergeievskoie. He married Nadezhda Annenkova in October 1868. He died on 6 January 1891 at age 47 at Paris, France.
He gained the title of Prince Romanovsky.  

  • Children of Nicholas Herzog von Leuchtenburg Prince Romanovsky and Nadezhda Annenkova:
    Nicholas Herzog von Leuchtenburg+   b. 17 Oct 1868, d. 2 Mar 1928
    George Herzog von Leuchtenburg+   b. 10 Dec 1872, d. 9 Aug 1929

Egvenia Maksimilianovna Herzogin von Leuchtenberg   b. 1 Apr 1845, d. 4 May 1925

She was born on 1 April 1845 at St. Petersburg, Russia.2 She married Alexander Friedrich Constantine von Holstein-Gottorp, Duke of Oldenburg, son of Constantine Friedrich Peter von Holstein-Gottorp, Duke of Oldenburg and Therese Prinzessin von Nassau-Weilburg, on 19 January 1868 at St. Petersburg.2 She died on 4 May 1925 at age 80 at Biarritz, Bearn, France.
She gained the title of Princess Evgenia Romanovskya. She gained the title of Duchess of Leuchtenberg.  

Child of Egvenia Maksimilianovna Herzogin von Leuchtenberg and Alexander Friedrich Constantine von Holstein-Gottorp, Duke of Oldenburg:
  • Peter Friedrich Georg von Holstein-Gottorp, Duke of Oldenburg   b. 21 Nov 1868, d. 11 Mar 1924 [/i]

    Eugene von Leuchtenburg   b. 8 Feb 1847, d. 31 Aug 1901

    He was born on 8 February 1847 at St. Petersburg, Russia. He married, firstly, Daria Opotchinina on 20 January 1869. He married, secondly, Zinaida Skobeleva on 14 July 1878 at Peterhof. He died on 31 August 1901 at age 54 at St. Petersburg. He gained the title of Prince Romanovsky.

    Child of Eugene von Leuchtenburg and Daria Opotchinina:
    • Daria de Beauharnais, Countess of Leuchtenburg+   b. 19 Mar 1870, d. a 1930

    Sergei Herzog von Leuchtenburg   b. 20 Dec 1849, d. 24 Oct 1877

    He was born on 20 December 1849 at St. Petersburg, Russia. He died on 24 October 1877 at age 27 at Rustchuk, killed in action.

    Georgii Maksimilianovich von Leuchtenberg, 6th Duc de Leuchtenberg   b. 29 Feb 1852, d. 16 May 1912

    He was born on 29 February 1852 at St. Petersburg, Russia. He married Therese Friederike Olga von Holstein-Gottorp, Duchess of Oldenburg, daughter of Constantine Friedrich Peter von Holstein-Gottorp, Duke of Oldenburg and Therese Prinzessin von Nassau-Weilburg, on 12 May 1879. He and Anastasiya Nikolaievna Petrovic-Njegoš, Princess of Montenegro were divorced in 1906.2 He married Anastasiya Nikolaievna Petrovic-Njegoš, Princess of Montenegro, daughter of Nicholas I Petrovic-Njegoš, King of Montenegro and Milena Vukotic, on 28 August 1889 at Peterhof. He died on 16 May 1912 at age 60 at Paris, France.
        He gained the title of 6th Duc de Leuchtenberg.1 He gained the title of Prince Georgii Romanovsky.1  
     Child of Georgii Maksimilianovich von Leuchtenberg, 6th Duc de Leuchtenberg and Therese Friederike Olga von Holstein-Gottorp, Duchess of Oldenburg:
    • Alexander Herzog von Leuchtenburg   b. 13 Nov 1881, d. 26 Sep 1942

    Children of Georgii Maksimilianovich von Leuchtenberg, 6th Duc de Leuchtenberg and Anastasiya Nikolaievna Petrovic-Njegoš, Princess of Montenegro:
    • Sergei Herzog von Leuchtenburg   b. 16 Jul 1890, d. 7 Jan 1974
      Elena Herzogin von Leuchtenburg+   b. 15 Jan 1892, d. 6 Feb 1971

    [size=13]From ([/size]
    Doesn't seem like the Revolution affected them...

The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« on: July 25, 2005, 01:43:40 AM »
There was a thread on this already under "The Windsors," most likely started before "The Tudors" had their own section.;action=display;num=1120880736;start=0

Maria Nicholaievna / Re: New book
« on: July 25, 2005, 01:31:02 AM »
Carrier Mother + Normal Father
Each pregnancy has a 25% chance of resulting in a normal female, a 25% chance of resulting in a female carrier, a 25% chance of resulting in a normal male, and a 25% chance of resulting in a male with hemophilia.

Here: this may help

The interesting thing is that since Alexei had hemophilia, if he had survived (the revolution and the disease) to father children, all of his daughters would have been carriers, but none of his sons would be affected with it.

"To live in the hearts we leave behind is not to die."

--Thomas Campbell


Pages: [1] 2 3