No, Not Everyone Can Be A Princess - Why Women Should Rule the World

You know, it probably won't come as a major surprised to you that I occasionally check into the Instagram account of a certain former member of the Grand Ducal Family every once in a while. While we took decision as Team Luxarazzi to stay above the fray when it comes to the ongoing divorce proceedings of Prince Louis and his wife Tessy who announced their separation more than two years ago, there is just something I want to get off my chest... The other day I saw this post:

Sieh dir diesen Beitrag auf Instagram an

Everybody can be a Princess. It is something you feel and express by your actions and words. Not by a name which was given to you. Don’t allow anybody to put you in a box. Only you have the right to judge yourself - my mantra is “why be like everybody else in order to fit in and for people not to gossip about you if you can be a bad ass unicorn” 🦋 Your time to shine has come. Don’t be afraid🦋 I believe in you! Kiss and sprinkles of joy from beautiful Nigeria to all of you, men and women🙏💐💋

Ein Beitrag geteilt von Theresa (@tessy_from_luxembourg) am Mär 28, 2019 um 4:40 PDT

"Everybody can be a Princess. It is something you fell and express by your actions and words. Not by a name given to you", Tessy writes - and while I am sure it was well intentioned, it just somehow rubs me the wrong way. No, not everyone can be a princess. It is not a name (unless you live in a former monarchy where titles became part of a legal last name). Instead, it is a title - and it is not even a title that someone attains by their own accomplishments, but a title someone has by the virtue of their birth or by marrying someone. Considering we live in the 21st century, I would classify neither as an achievement. 

Being a princess doesn't make you a better human being either. It is who you are as a person who makes you a better human being, but still not a princess. Let's face it, the whole point of it has always been privilege and elitism. If everyone could be a princess, what is the point of being one to begin with? Be defined by yourself and your own actions and not a title bestowed on certain people based on the luck of their birth or marriage. Apart from a possible superficial first attraction to your title, it doesn't make you an interesting person. It is what's beneath that counts.

I also keep wondering: What is the obsession with being a princess to begin with? If these ranks are achievable, I would want to be a Queen, thank you very much. Or better yet, an Empress. A Grand Duchess, a Landgravine, the Princess - someone who rules the world (or a tiny part of it) in her own right. Not a princess, which just means being the wife or daughter of someone without any actual power whatsoever. We live in the 21st century, it is time we stop defining women by being someone else's mother, wife or daughter. Young girls should dream of and aspire to be the woman who rules the world, not the wife or daughter of someone who does.

With fairytales and Disney omnipresent, it is not hard to imagine where society's obsession with being a princess comes from. It’s something easy to daydream about: The prince on a white horse who comes, sweeps you off your feet and takes you to his fairytale land and you live happily ever after. However, that isn't the reality of life - and frankly it would be a pretty boring one at that. Perhaps someone should write the story about Cinderella ten years on, with five kids, stretch marks, a whining staff, and she and Prince Charming having the same argument they've been having for a decade?!

So in the end, I can't help but I think if the desire to "be a princess" by grown women is also actually an unstated preference for having a life of ease and privilege with very little responsibility. And that's hardly something for young women to aspire to. It's like striving to be famous instead of striving to be talented. So to all the girls and women out there: Be the Queen, be the Empress, rule the world!

Luxarazzi in Limbo: What the Heck Is Going On With Royal Watching?

How long have you been reading Luxarazzi? Right from the start sometime all the way back in 2009? Or was it the wedding of Guillaume and Stéphanie that brought you here? Or Félix and Claire? Or maybe it was your love for history? For jewellery? For royal fashion? Whatever it was that brought you here in the first place, we are very lucky with our loyal readership. It's a nice little place on the world wide web. A lot has changed in the past ten years though; we, your writers here at Luxarazzi, and also Luxarazzi itself. We always tried to model this blog to fit our own interests and increasingly busy schedules and also your interests - but for how long we will feel like continue doing that, I just don't know.

In the last few days, we were sadly reminded that the world of royal watching around us has also changed in the past ten years. And not for the better, I might add. One of our own, Heaven who provides us with great insight into wardrobes of the Luxembourg and Liechtenstein ladies, and her fellow writers at UFO No More were right in the middle of this. 

Their annual post on the worth of the wardrobe of several royal ladies has garnered widespread attention. After lengthy discussions with Royal Hashemite Court of Jordan and the Office of Queen Rania, they decided to no longer include her in the list. The information published in previous years had been used against her to criticise Queen Rania. While the writers at UFO No More always clearly stated that they simply published the numbers the new pieces worn that year were worth, others simply took the number and stated for a fact that this was the money a royal lady had spent on their wardrobe. (Just to be clear: There's a difference as royals may lend clothes or get hefty discounts.) 

While nobody would have probably ever talked about the matter again because it had been a year since the numbers were published, the Hashemite Royal Court made sure that the controversy was in everyone's mouth at the beginning of this year, when they issued a press release stating that the numbers were never true and simply made up. Even if Queen Rania didn't actually pay as much for her wardrobe as it is worth according to the retail prices because she borrowed the clothes or got them at reduced prices, maybe she and the people surrounding her should also think about the message she sends wearing usually expensive designer clothes - even if acquired at a lower rate - while being the wife of a head of state of a developing nation.

I do not live in a bubble. I realise that what you write about a royal or a famous person on the internet can have consequences in real life for them, especially when your website garners the attention of the wide-spread media. We have been there with Luxarazzi and while we generally have a good relationship with the cour grand-ducale, they weren't always in favour of all the things we published. And that's fine. In the end, they are a PR outlet for the Grand Ducal Family. We are part of a new form of media and media isn't a PR outlet. We both have every right to exist. Luckily, both Luxembourg and Liechtenstein are free and democratic countries - so we are free to share our opinions and agree to disagree with what the Grand Ducal and Princely Families do. While we generally try to keep the tone light, we always try to make sure to give a balanced view on things.

All of this, however, isn't the reason that I feel like Luxarazzi is in a limbo and cannot predict where we are heading. Instead, it was the reaction by many on social media and elsewhere to the Rania drama and the numbers published for the Duchess of Sussex that just wants us - as I am pretty certain that I can also speak for the other people behind Luxarazzi here - to leave the royal watching world behind. I know that it is probably a byeffect of social media, echo chambers and filter bubbles but when have we lost the ability the process information that does not fit our own narrative? When did we lose the ability to agree to disagree? How boring is live in an echo chamber? Living in a filter bubble, where everyone thinks the same way as you do, will never challenge you and help you to grow and see things from another point of view even if you don't agree.

Yet, when UFO No More published the numbers for 2018, especially some parts of the followerbase of the Duchess of Sussex jumped at the throats of the writers over at UFO No More. Many people even seem insistent that there must be some great conspiracy behind all of it to put Meghan in her place, that the numbers were simply published to tear her down. Do you realise that UFO No More has published the same kind of post even before Meghan came onto the scene? It seems hard to understand to some but there was royal watching well before Meghan. The same people also do not seem to be able to grasp that not every information published about a royal that isn't glowingly praising them is criticism. If anything, if the circumstance that Meghan's wardrobe of 2018 was worth more than that of other royals and the publication of the fact rubs you the wrong way, it is probably a sign that you think that her number is, in fact, too high.

If you care to read the full articles published by UFO No More, you will see that it doesn't include any opinions whatsoever on the numbers. So all opinions and criticisms are projections by the readers. As a blog or website, you do not have control over what others do with the information you provide.  You can take almost any information and make them fit your narrative. A royal is not a celebrity. Monarchy and royalty in 21st century should not not be an end in itself. People are allowed to question and people are allowed to chose. Royals have to navigate the challenges of today, whether criticism is constructive or unfounded. I don't envy them but to deny people to publish researched facts just to raise the pedestal on which a royal is put negates important discussions and reflections - and ultimately growth. 

Archduchess Gabriella and Prince Henri: An Old-School Royal Union

Many royal watchers were surprised by the news the other day that Archduchess Gabriella, niece of Grand Duke Henri, and her fiancée Prince Henri of Bourbon-Parma recently welcomed a baby daughter. Their's is an old-school royal union, after all the Habsburgs and the Bourbons are some, if not the most important royal houses in Europe. When I set out to write this post, I had a pretty clear message in my head. I planned to say that this union may just be a bit too close to comfort for my personal taste. Archduchess Gabriella and Prince Henri are second cousins, with both their sets of parents also being second cousins.

I'm neither an advocate pro- or anti-noble unions as I simply believe that you should marry the person you love and want to spend your life with. It wasn't even simply the fact that they are second cousins, but how many times over these two are related. However, when we did the maths I - and my fellow bloggers here at Luxarazzi - were pretty surprised. We traced young Victoria's (who, by the way, due to being born out of wedlock probably does not have a style and title) back seven generations. And while they are some very interesting lineages from the same ancestors, there also are plenty little known nobles that aren't related in any way in there.

Probably most striking of all, baby Victoria is a descendant of Duke Robert I of Parma (1848-1907) and his second wife Infanta Maria Antonia of Portugal (1862-1959) through four different lines. Duke Robert I of Parma had 24 children by two wives. Among them Princess Zita, (the future Empress of Austria), Prince Felix (the future Prince Consort of Luxembourg), and Prince René (who went on to marry Princess Margrethe of Denmark). It is through these three royals that young Victoria can trace her ancestry back to the last sovereign Duke of Parma and Piacenza.

The Parma connection

Robert of Parma	Robert of Parma	Robert of Parma	Robert of Parma
Zita of Bourbon-Parma	Felix of Bourbon-Parma	Felix of Bourbon-Parma	René of Bourbon-Parma
Carl-Ludwig of Austria	Jean of Luxembourg	Marie-Gabrielle of Luxembourg	Michel of Bourbon-Parma
Carl-Christian of Austria	Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg	Lydia of Holstein til Ledreborg	Erik of Bourbon-Parma
Gabriella of Austria	Gabriella of Austria	Henri of Bourbon-Parma	Henri of Bourbon-Parma
Victoria	Victoria	Victoria	Victoria

Victoria also descends in multiple ways from King Miguel I of Portugal and his wife née Princess Adelaide of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg; King Christian IX of Denmark ("the Father-in-Law of Europe") and his wife née Princess Louise of Hesse-Kassel; and Duke Wilhelm of Nassau via his first or second wife. She is also a descendant of Luxembourg's very own Grand Duchess Charlotte and Prince Felix via two of their children, Grand Duke Jean and Princess Marie-Gabrielle, as also shown above.

Looking at the big picture, however, it is not nearly as bad as I thought. (Pro tip: Click on the picture while using the CTRL key and the charts should open in all their glory.)

We went back seven generation. In the row on the bottom, you can read the names of Victoria's great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers. Everyone who appears more than once is marked with a colour. Grand Duchess Charlotte and Prince Felix are marked purple; King Miguel I of Portugal and Princess Adelaide of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg red; King Christian IX of Denmark and Princess Louise of Hesse-Kassel are turquoise; Duke Wilhelm of Nassau is yellow; and Duke Robert I of Parma and Infanta Maria Antonia of Portugal are green. (Read the chart from the left, as we stopped a line as soon as he arrived at people that previously appeared.) As you can see, there is plenty of blue - meaning people, who appear only once.

A closer look at Archduchess Gabriella's ancestors.

A closer look at Prince Henri's ancestor (to be read in addition to Gabriella's chart).

Yes, some of these lines (*cough* Grand Duchess Charlotte and Prince Felix *cough*) end pretty early on but I imagined there to be a much smaller variety of ancestors and more overlap in previous generations. Combined, Archduchess Gabriella's and Prince Henri's grandparents do include a Princess of Ligne, a Count of Holstein til Ledreborg and a Princess of Broglie-Revel though. While famous noble names, they would not have been able to marry into the ruling families of Austria, Luxembourg, (Bourbon-)Parma, Braganca or Belgium prior to the last century.

If we would go back further, we would naturally find more common ancestors. With seven generations we are, however, well into the 18th century - and if we looked at our own family trees, we would probably find a few overlaps in ancestry back then, too. Will I ever become a fan of modern-day intermarriage between rather closely-related royals? Probably not, but I got to admit that it was rather fun researching all of this. And I may just miss the days a tiny bit when you could easily make out all the close familial connections between the different reigning families. Days that a are  now gone with only a few reminders still in existence. Cases in point: Grand Duke Henri and King Philippe of the Belgians are first cousins, as are King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Queen Margrethe of Denmark. 

You Go, Girl: (Kinda) In Defense of (Princess) Tessy

You know, when I first thought about writing a post, it all sounded very different in my head to what I will likely put on paper in the paragraphs to come. Somehow, the issue discussed seemed small in comparison to what feels more important – to me anyway.

For those not familiar: Over the past few days there has been a discussion over on Twitter on the titles of the woman who is or was Princess Tessy of Luxembourg, a discussion fueled by a (not so) private Instagram post of her's that we were asked about over on Twitter. Concerning her name and title: Neither of us royal watchers knows for sure what her current name is as there has never been an official announcement about her divorce from Prince Louis being finalised. For the record: If she still is Princess Tessy of Luxembourg, it means that her divorce from Prince Louis hasn’t been finalised yet. If it has been finalised, she does not have a title based on the Bylaws concerning the House Law of the Grand Ducal Family. It is not a matter of my opinion, but a matter of facts. The House Law clearly states, "In case of a legal separation, a divorce or remarriage after death, the wives lose the style and title conferred upon them."

As Tessy's road to princesshood wasn't the traditional path, we asked the cour back in February about the matter and they agreed with us replying that Tessy does in fact fall under the ordinary rules "following the grand-ducal decree from June 18, 2012, [...] a spouse (by marriage) loses, in case of divorce, her titles and predicates [style]". The cour also stated in a later reply that they were not able to comment on her name post-divorce yet (and we stood corrected about the moment the change came into effect). You know, if you are a regular reader here, you will already now: I - and I think I say that I can speak for my co-bloggers, so we aren't actually much of gossip girls but more factual Fräuleins. 

I'm just a stickler for facts and the little things. You know, royal news and weddings and births and clothes and tiaras - they are all interesting and I enjoy them, but they are not what has kept interested in royalty for all these years. They are a gateway to something much more interesting: History and the big and small mechanisms that have made monarchy work over all these years into the 21st century. 

One thing that has always bothered me about royal past and present though is how a woman is often defined by who she is married to. We know way less about your average or even stellar woman in world history than we know about the men. And to this day, there are still a few monarchies who won't even call a woman by her own name in her title. Princess Michael of Kent. Lady Nicholas Windsor. Seriously? Can't you frigging call a woman by her own name, Great Britain? And don't get me started on the Archiduc et Archiduchesse Carl-Christian d'Autriche in French. I know it's tradition and I'm not the kind of person who says that a woman shouldn't take her husband's name because it is a sign of a patriarchal society and it makes her lose her own identity but not even her first name? Come on!

And somehow the whole discussion around Princess Tessy's titles reminded me of that. Tessy was 20 when she married Louis and her whole adult life, she was defined by being her husband's wife, not least by the handling of the cour. Heck, it took them seven - I repeat: seven - years to finally introduce an own biography section of her's on their website (and only after Félix and Claire married). I wouldn't blame Tessy if she even started to define herself by that. She entered the family in an unconventional way and she was suddenly thrust into a limelight and a lifestyle she wasn't used to. At 20, we are still trying to figure us out and most people who knew at that age have no clue what to do with their lives at that time. Even though I didn't (and still don't) always agree with what she did/does, said/says and handled/handles things, I always rooted for Tessy and Louis. I always wanted them to prove the naysayers wrong and those who said they were doomed from the start. I do not believe that a marriage is a failure because you decide to divorce. Sometimes putting an end is even the more difficult step than to just go on. 

For better or worse, Louis and Tessy decided to pull the plug and whatever the future may hold for them, it seems to be working out for them right now from the little we know. And it shouldn't matter, what name or title Tessy has now or after her divorce. Yes, being married to Louis is why we know her and why she is featured on this blog, but that doesn't mean that we must define her by it for all eternity. She was 18 when she joined the army and served in the KFOR peacekeeping mission in Kosovo as the only woman in her draft. She has spoken about the tough times she had there but it goes to show that she must have been one heck of a strong woman to begin with. She is raising two beautiful boys, got two university degrees and founded her own charity. She champions various causes including being an UNAIDS Global Advocate for Young Women and Adolescent Girls. Can we please start define her by the amazing work she is doing and not by the fact that she was or maybe still is married to a guy with a title? This may be news to some, but simply having a fancy name and a style and title to go along with it is not a merit and doesn't make anyone a better person. Yes, her marriage to Louis gave Tessy lots of great opportunities, but want to know what is even greater? That she took them and built something not just for herself but to benefit others who are less fortunate.

Accidentally Opening Pandora's Box - or Royals Deserve Privacy Just Like Us

Have you ever felt like you have opened a can of worms? That you said something you shouldn't have? That you made a thoughtless comment in the spur of a moment that you later regretted? That's what happened to me the other day. Without thinking much, I said something about a significant other of one of the people we cover on this blog. This significant other wasn't generally known before the comment I made and with the information I provided, fellow royal watchers took it upon themselves to dig for further information and were successful. Since then the name of a private individual who just happens to be close to someone with a famous family name has been floating around the internet with some people even feeling the need to make more or less appropriate comments as well as publish further information.

Some will say: That's the price of dating royalty - but it shouldn't be. Of course there are occasionally cases, where the individual might want to get things out there, essentially negating the need for privacy. But that certainly wasn't the case here. The person in question and their significant other have never appeared together at a public event much less being photographed together or have officially spoken about each other. 

So why the need to basically throw them to the wolves in a day and age where something that is once written in a public space on the internet will never again fully disappear? For hits? To prove that you know something others don't? I am certainly not faultless in all of it and I regret making a - what I thought at the time - fairly innocent and - as it turns out - thoughtless comment about the nationality and family heritage of the person in question which led to their identity being revealed to the broad public. And even though they will very certainly never read this: My sincere apologies to everyone involved! I have certainly learned my lesson and will not make the same mistake again.

I know that we haven't always been as strict here at Luxarazzi, but it will definitely mean that we will become even more strict and careful than we are now about extra bits of information we mention here and there about members of both the Luxembourg and Liechtenstein families. Yes, royals are public figures, but in no way does that make it acceptable to intrude on their private life. They deserve the same respect and common courtesy that we all do. The very same goes for royal adjacent people, people that may not even have the same resources to protect themselves in a way that a royal would. Just because something is theoretically available online, doesn't mean it should be widely shared.

I very much understand that for a royal watcher, that kind of detail is tempting and may serve the purpose of establishing credibility to show that you know something others are not aware of. But your need to establish and promote yourself should not hurt another person who is just thrown under the bus in the process of doing so. Treat them as you would want to be treated. We are dealing with human beings and the human aspect of it, like how the people in question might feel, should always be our first concern - the number of hits your website gets or the number of likes your post on social media shouldn't.

Why Liam is No Prince of Luxembourg

In the week since the baptism of Prince Liam, there have been several articles mentioning the young son of Prince Félix and Princess Claire as a Prince of Luxembourg. However, that is not correct. Being the child of a younger son of the Grand Duke, Liam is not a Prince of Luxembourg in accordance with the family bylaws concerning the house law published via the Arrêté grand-ducal of June 18, 2012 but instead a Prince of Nassau (as well as a Prince of Bourbon-Parma as a descendant of Prince Felix, the husband of Grand Duchess Charlotte).

Item 2 of paragraph 4b of the bylaws states that "the second and further grade male line marital descendants of the head of the house; with the exception of the offspring of the member of the house called upon to succeed to the throne according to the laws of primogeniture (item 1); and their wives by marriage according to the house rules, have the style of Royal Highness, their first name and the family name “zu Nassau” (“de Nassau”) and the title Prince or Princess of Nassau, etc. etc." The same naturally applies to Liam's sister Amalia, who is a Princess of Nassau (as well as a Prince of Bourbon-Parma).

This rule was already introduced in 1995 by way of the Arrêté grand-ducal of September 21 regulating the styles and titles of members of the Grand Ducal Family. It means that the children of Prince Guillaume, younger brother of the Grand Duke, also only carry the title of Prince/Princess of Nassau but not of Luxembourg. (As do the children of Prince Jean though they are in a bit of a special situation considering that there weren't born with the title.) Prince Robert and Princess Charlotte, children of Prince Charles and thus first cousins of the Grand Duke, are an exception to this rule as they were born before it was established. Hence, they hold the title Prince and Princess of Luxembourg, respectively, with the style Royal Highness. Prince Robert's wife and children are styled Royal Highnesses with the title Prince or Princess of Nassau.

Prince Liam is also a member of the Grand Ducal Family and Grand Ducal Line but not of the Grand Ducal House as the latter "consists of the head of state (as head of the house), the former heads of state and first grade descendants of a head of the house born within a marriage made according to the house rules."

It's Not Fake News Because You Can't See it

This weekend, the baptism of Prince Liam and the media coverage surrounding it (or lack thereof) brought up an old topic when it comes to the Grand Ducal Family. It made me exclaim on Twitter: "Sometimes I want to scream at people: It's the Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg we are talking about - what did you expect?!" It went as far as us being accused of spreading "fake news" just because visual evidence was not readily available three minutes, or even a day, after the event took place. I know that in the day and age of social media, when we see many events unfold right in front of our eyes on our computer or phone screen, a more restraint interaction with the press often seems dubious. 

However, just because we don't see something, it doesn't mean it is not happening. Little information in advance to an event, few pictures of an event by press photographers, and photos officially released by the cour grand-ducale a day or three later certainly is nothing uncommon with the Grand Ducal Family. While I occasionally make snarky remarks about it, I'm not going to write a big post complaining about it because we are not going to change the workings of the cour. I work in the field of public relations myself, and I know how time-consuming and tiring the process of coordinating press releases can be. Could they be quicker? Yes. Are we going to change it? No. It is just the way it is.

One thing you can be sure of though is that here at Luxarazzi we are never going to spread "fake news". We only publish information coming from sources we trust - may it be cour, certain news outlets or private individuals. Yes, we have been mistaken in the past and we apologised for it. However, our mistakes have never been about events happening or not happening. To be honest, I have hard time imagining why should we make up a baptism of a member of the Grand Ducal Family, when you can so easy prove us wrong. I feel like I'm sounding like a broken record, but Luxarazzi is just hobby, and nobody makes any money off it. So why should we even attempt to create headlines full of clickbait? Yes, it is nice to see the number of people reading Luxarazzi, but it brings us nothing more than a smile on our faces. While after so many years of Luxarazzi, I still wouldn't call myself a true expert on the Grand Ducal Family (because I keep learning so much), so trust a person who has been a close follower of them for close to eight years now: Some news is real even if not all the details are released - and there is also not a big conspiracy theory or dark secret hidden behind an event if there is little information available.

There has been heaps of speculation surrounding the birth and baptism of Prince Liam. Why was his name announced so late? Why were pictures released later than after his sister's birth? Why was he born in Geneva? Why did his family suddenly move to Geneva? Why wasn't the baptism covered more broadly by the media? And why did it take place five months after his birth to begin with? Seriously, people, do you expect a murderer behind every corner?!

Was the baptism held relatively late? Yes. Do we know why? No. Usually baptisms in the Grand Ducal Family take place four to six weeks after the birth. Liam was born at the end of November. Maybe both the Nassau and Lademacher families had already made Christmas plans and they weren't able to come together in one place for the baptism? Maybe they had to wait to use a chapel at the Vatican? On January 18, the separation of Prince Louis and Princess Tessy was announced. Just pure speculation on my part, but maybe the family didn't care to hold a semi-public family event at a time when it became official that one part of their family was breaking apart? About four weeks later, Princess Tessy filed for divorce. Just a short while later, on March 1, Lent started. In many Catholic parishes it is common that children are not baptised during the time of Lent (unless the child is seriously ill and in danger of dying). During Lent the holy water is actually removed from churches. And Lent, of course, ended on Easter Sunday, which was just a week ago.

You know, there can be and very likely are extremely simple explanations behind many if not all the questions thrown into the mix over the past few days. The cour has never been the ones to keep us fully updated on all the whereabouts and occurrences in the Grand Ducal Family. Members of the family have moved halfway around the world without there ever being an official announcement, so many things may seem way more sudden or mysterious from the outside than they actually are. Would I sometimes like to get more official updates as well as more and quicker pictures of events? Yes. But somehow this mystery and the fact that we do not know what the Grand Duke just ate for lunch or when the Grand Duchess got her last haircut is what got me interested and kept my interest in the Nassaus - even though keeping up with all their events can be tough sometimes as information isn't always readily available. 

I wouldn't even claim Luxarazzi to be the ultimate source of news and events of the Grand Ducal Family. We do the best we can to find every bit of news; however, there are a number of events undertaken by members of the family that never get published by either the cour or the media: Audiences, low-key visits, and so on - but just because we do not see it, it doesn't that isn't happening.

A Woman's Worth: Is She or Isn't She

Is a woman worth more than the children she bears? Yes, should be the obvious answer to this question. However, moving in royal watching circles, you start to wonder. Surely, the monarchy is a concept out of another time, some might say. And yes, it is. It is a concept that long favoured men over women and some countries still do. If the first child is a boy, he stands to inherit the throne. If it is a girl, the birth of a sibling could always mean that she loses her position in case the sibling is of the male gender. In some countries, women even have no right to succession whatsoever. (Giving a serious side-eye to you, Liechtenstein, here.) However, most European countries have moved with the times and so did society in general. I've said it before and I say it again: It is sad that even in the 21th century, the success of a princess (or any woman, really) is still measured by the fact whether she has given birth to a child or not.

It's no secret, we all love a royal baby. For a royal family, as for most families out there, a baby is very good news as it shows continuation. In some cases, the world even goes into a frenzy and stares at a door for days on end. (Serious side-eye to Great Britain here.) However, one could have hoped that we had moved long past the times during which a woman's uterus was the most important part of her body and giving birth to as many children as possible was a merit. No woman is a failure because she hasn't given birth (yet). It may be a choice, every couple has to decide for themselves when they are ready to have a child. Or if you are indeed trying to conceive and it isn't working, you don't need the outside world to give comments about what a failure you are. Somehow it is also often blamed on the woman if a couple hasn't been able to conceive even though it may be the male partner who is infertile.

While 99 percent of us only need to bear the looming questions of our well-meaning relatives about when the next - or any - bundle of joy will come into this world. The occupancy rate of the uterus of a royal woman will warrant (more or less) international headlines. Every picture is analysed, a badly fitted dress, a hand placed on the stomach or a few doughnuts too much quickly become the first sign of a pregnancy and turned into a sensational headline. Yet we hardly stop and think. 

Think about how this makes the woman and couple in question feel. The never-ending headlines or a subtle question about a possible pregnancy can be very painful to a couple going through (a period of) infertility. The talk of a baby-bump damaging a woman's sense of self-worth. And above it all, maybe a sad story of baby that is no more: Miscarriages can happen to everyone, no matter who you are. The late Queen Fabiola of Belgium suffered five miscarriages before resigning to having no children with King Baudouin, brother of Grand Duchess Joséphine-Charlotte. 

While one child certainly cannot substitute another, there are also happier endings: Princess Margaretha and Prince Nikolaus lost at least one child due to miscarriage before Princess Margaretha prematurely gave birth to baby boy, Léopold, who died later the same day. The couple later had three healthy children: Anunciata, Astrid and Josef. It goes to show us that in the end, it's not in our hands. Whether you believe in God, nature or happenstance, it is some power above - fertility is nothing we have perfect control over and so no one should pressure or expect anyone to get pregnant in a year, two or five. Sometimes it is a choice, sometimes it's just not to be. Whatever reason, nobody is a failure because of it.

The Future Title of Princess Tessy of Luxembourg

Earlier this evening, the cour grand-ducale announced that Prince Louis and Princess Tessy would divorce after ten years of marriage and two children together. Almost immediately, we were asked about a few more details. We will address the ones regarding titles, styles and names in a moment, but first let us express how sad we are for Prince Louis, Princess Tessy, Prince Gabriel, Prince Noah and all involved. I am sure we all wish the family well during this trying time, especially the young princes. Here on Luxarazzi - and I hope everywhere else out there - we will refrain from any speculation about personal matters and respect the privacy of everyone involved. We hope that they can find the long-term happiness apart that they couldn't find together and remain friends for the sake of their sons.

Prince Louis married the former - and probably future - Tessy Antony on September 29, 2006, at the parish church of Gilsdorf after a legal wedding at the palais grand-ducal. The couple had become the parents of a boy, Gabriel, about half a year earlier. He was soon followed by a brother, Noah, in September 2007. On August 22, 2006, a little more than a month before his marriage, Prince Louis renounced his succession rights to the Luxembourgish throne. The decision was made as not to give an advantage to any future children. His oldest son, Gabriel, would not have been able to inherit succession rights anyway as he was born out of wedlock. At the time, Princess Tessy was simply known as Tessy de Nassau taking the legal last name of the Grand Ducal Family. Accordingly, her sons were known as Gabriel de Nassau and Noah de Nassau.

The decision of Louis' wife and son only having the last name "de Nassau" and neither title nor style wasn't without precedent in the history of the Grand Ducal Family yet a decision against the Arrêté grand-ducal of September 21, 1995, which reorganised the styles, titles and surname of the Grand Ducal Family. The decree's Article 3 states, "The Princes of Our House who have entered into a marriage without the consent of the Head of the Family, along with their spouse, bear respectively the title of Count and Countess of Nassau. The descendants of these unions are qualified in the same way."

According to the 1995 decree, Prince Louis should have henceforth be known as Count Louis of Nassau and his family as Countess Tessy of Nassau and Count Gabriel of Nassau. However, Tessy was denied the usage of the title via a press release of Grand Duke Henri (while Louis remained a Prince of Luxembourg). On national day 2009, the Grand Duke made the announcement that Tessy de Nassau would be elevated to the rank of "Her Royal Highness Princess Tessy of Luxembourg". Her and Prince Louis' sons would henceforth be known as "His Royal Highness Prince Gabriel of Nassau" and "His Royal Highness Prince Noah of Nassau", just like any other grandchildren of the Grand Duke by children who are not the heir to the throne.

There should have been an official decree to go along with the press release allowing Tessy and her sons the usage of their titles and styles. However, we have never been able to locate said decree. (Unless there was some weird retroactive consent-giving going on like it happened in Belgium with Prince Amedeo.) There definitely were decrees in 1995 and 2004, respectively, that elevated the wives and children of Prince Jean and Prince Robert firstly to the rank of Counts and Countesses of Nassau and then Princes and Princesses of Nassau. Both decrees are publicly available. If there was no decree published along with the press release elevating Tessy, Gabriel and Noah, one would have a very good argument to question the validity of their titles and styles in the first place. (Yes, even the Grand Duke as Fountain of Honour cannot make title elevations by press release.)

In addition to the Grand Duke's signature, an act creating new titles of the nobility of Luxembourg also needs a countersignature by a member of the government as per Article 45 of the constitution, which says, "All provisions of the Grand Duke require the countersignature of a responsible member of the Government." Both the 1995 and 2004 decrees include the countersignatures, as do all other acts related to a title or the validation of a foreign title be they issued by Grand Duke Adolph, Grand Duchess Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess Charlotte, Grand Duke Jean or Grand Duke Henri.

Speaking of countersignature... In 2012, a new House Law was introduced (which actually lacks the countersignature - but that is another topic for another day...), The Bylaws - again, lacking countersignature - concerning the House Law stipulate that "In case of a legal separation, a divorce or remarriage after death, the wives [of a member of the House] lose the style and title conferred upon them." (Article 4b) The same Article also states that "The use or the conferral of a style or title in the individual case cannot deduce either rights from the membership of the House or Family or consent to the marriage."

You would be right in thinking now that Princess Tessy will soon cease to be a princess and become Tessy Antony again, as she was known prior her marriage. However... This wouldn't be the Grand Ducal Family if there wasn't a twist to it: Tessy was elevated to the rank of "Her Royal Highness Princess Tessy of Luxembourg (* and the titles that go along with it)" in 2009. The House Law was introduced three years later. So, without knowing the exact wording of the decree creating her a Princess, you can't be entirely sure if the House Law actually is applicable to her case. There were a few instances - gender neutral succession, anyone? - in which the cour specifically stated that the House Law would not be applied retroactively. So it is questionable if it will be in the case of Princess Tessy's future title and style as the current ones were created prior to the introduction of the House Law.

If a decree actually exists somewhere and specifically mentions "Tessy de Nassau" being created "HRH Princess Tessy of Luxembourg etc." yet fails to mention the event of a divorce and what happens to her title in said event, one could make a serious case, that Tessy can actually keep her title. (Assuming that the decree is countersigned.) Looking back at the decrees of 1995 and 2004, both included a stipulation about divorces et al and what happens with titles and styles in the case it does happen.

For example, Article 4 of the 1995 decree reads as following, "In case of separation from the spouses, in case of divorce, in case of remarriage after death, the titles conferred to the spouses of the Princes of Our House by virtue of the present decree are lost." It is by this stipulation that Countess Hélène of Nassau, first wife of Prince Jean, reverted to her maiden name Hélène Vestur after her divorce. And despite all what we just wrote, we would still assume that the case of Princess Tessy will be handled in the same way, unless otherwise stated by the cour grand-ducale.

You could even make the case that one part of the 2012 House Law was written with Princess Tessy specifically in mind. Article 4b says, "In case of a legal separation, a divorce or remarriage after death, the wives lose the style and title conferred upon them." Tessy's title isn't based on the House Law, according to which she would also be a Countess of Nassau (while her husband could have kept his title as Prince of Luxembourg, in difference to the 1995 decree). Rather it is based on a (non-existent?) decree, so in her case it has been an actual "conferral of the title" instead of under the rights of another part of the same Article saying that "the members of the Grand Ducal House and the Grand Ducal Family, in all their official and private functions which may concern them, bear [...], those who conducted a marriage without the consent of the Head of the House, the family name "zu Nassau" ("de Nassau") as well as their previous title. The wives and legitimate offspring of this marriage bear their first name and the family name "zu Nassau" ("de Nassau") as well as the title Count or Countess of Nassau."

As you can see, you can make many cases on this matter. The most likely one, following precedent, is that Princess Tessy will soon be known as "Tessy Antony" again. In Luxembourg, a woman who is part of a mutual consent (no-fault) divorce cannot retain her husband's surname without his consent. Yet you can also see that there are many twists and turns in this explanation and the way the Grand Ducal Family has handled these matters in the past, so you never really know.

One thing is for sure though, Princess Tessy has been a real asset to the family and we hope that she continues to very much be a part of the family no matter what the future and the title question holds, much as it has been the case with Hélène Vestur.

A Princess' Right to the Throne

Princess Charlotte with her brothers, from left to right,
Prince Paul-Louis, Prince Jeand and Prince Léopold
(Photo: Guy Jallay / Luxemburger Wort / Wort.lu)

In 2010, Grand Duke Henri changed the law of succession to the Luxembourgish throne to make it gender neutral. The change was communicated around national day a year later in 2011. Those who have been around long enough in the royal watching community will remember that things were a bit messy back then: First, Princess Alexandra had succession rights, then she didn't, and then it turned out that she indeed had them after all. The question of another Luxembourgish princess was much less discussed around that time: Princess Charlotte of Nassau, only daughter of Prince Guillaume and Princess Sibilla.

Prince Guillaume is the only of the Grand Duke's siblings to possess succession rights to the Luxembourgish throne. Archduchess Marie-Astrid's and Princess Margaretha's rights have only ever been very theoretical to begin with: Prior to 2010, females in the Grand Ducal Family were never in the line of succession per se but only allowed to succeed if there was no male member of the family with succession rights left. This was the case for both Grand Duchess Marie-Adelaide and Grand Duchess Charlotte. The fifth child of Grand Duke Jean, Prince Jean, renounced his rights to the Luxembourgish throne a few weeks after the birth of his daughter Marie-Gabrielle, who was born out of wedlock. As for the other two male-line members of the Grand Ducal Family: Prince Robert married without consent and at least can't pass on a right to the throne - it's debatable whether he still has them himself - and Princess Charlotte never really had them, similar to her cousins Marie-Astrid and Margaretha.

The décret grand-ducal of September 16, 2010, states the following:

We Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau

after inspection of the “Nassauischer Erbverein” of June 30, 1783, as well as changes and amendments, mainly by the family bylaw concerning the house law of May 5, 1907,

after the approval of the agnatic council

declare and command:

Art 1) The furthermore unchanged "Erneuerter Nassauischer Erbverein"  of June 30, 1783, is amended and supplemented as follows

a) Article 24, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 is replaced by the following

"1) The order of succession in every possible way, in which the right of the first born child without exception is to be respected,"

b) Article 24, Paragraph 2 and 3 become Paragraph 2 and are replaced by the following

"Regarding the order of succession (Paragraph 1), We felt called upon, in case of death or abdication of a reigning Grand Duke, not to limit the right to succeed to the throne to the male line, but to introduce primogeniture regardless of gender, to confirm and to substantiate, so that the inheritance of the throne will go and remain with the oldest child of a reigning Grand Duke. The order of succession will be applied for the first time to Our descendants."

c) Article 26 is replaced by the following

"If the head of the house dies without marital heirs of the blood, his siblings and their descendants inherit the throne and the Grand Ducal entail in order of the firstborn child, as long as they are in the line of succession. If the head of the house has no siblings, this is valid for his next-related house- or family members. "

There is also an additional Article, part of the bylaws concerning the House Law, giving female members of the Grand Ducal Family the right to vote in matters concerning the family council. However, the further Article (much like the one above) does not fail to mention, that it is first applied to "Our [Grand Duke Henri's] descendants". The changes were confirmed by the new version of the Nassauischer Erbverein, published in 2012. Only Article 24 is slightly reworded:

As far as it concerns the order of succession (Paragraph 1), the right to inherit the throne after the abdication or the death of a reigning Grand Duke has the first child, regardless of gender, of him. This order of succession is applied for the first time to Our descendants.

Once again, there is no fail of mention, that the changes apply for the first time to the descendants of Grand Duke Henri. Apart from the Grand Duke himself, there is only one other member of his generation passing on succession rights, his youngest brother Prince Guillaume. Prince Guillaume has three sons: Prince Paul-Louis, Prince Léopold and Prince Jean. However, he also has a daughter: Princess Charlotte. While his three sons have had the right to succeed to the Luxembourgish throne since their birth, his daughter Charlotte apparently still doesn't. (I say apparently as you never know with the cour grand-ducale, see the case of Princess Alexandra above. Plus, the cour has failed to answer the question thus far even after being asked repeatedly.)

I don't think anyone expected Grand Duke Henri's sisters to ever gain succession rights but why exclude Princess Charlotte? I doubt the young princess cares very much - after all she would only be tenth in line to the throne as of now with lots of cousins and brothers of child-having age ahead of her, which means that she would likely drop further down the line in years to come - but wouldn't have been as easy to apply the changes to the line of succession to all descendants to prince's house able to succeed to the throne?

Thinking this further, it actually means that we have two different succession rights in two different lines of the Grand Ducal Family. While the line of Grand Duke Henri practises absolute primogeniture (meaning that the first born child regardless of their gender is called upon to succeed to the throne), the line of Prince Guillaume practises a semi-salic law, which allows women to succeed only at the extinction of all the male descendants in the male line. In the future, this will also apply to further descendants of Prince Guillaume's line. Any grandsons in male-line will find their place in the order of succession (provided that their parents' marriage received the Grand Duke's written consent), while granddaughters will remain excluded. However unlikely and heaven forbid, but if Grand Duke Henri's line were to die out, Luxembourg would be back to the same old law of succession practised prior to 2010 giving no right whatsoever to women as long as a male relative is alive.

See our translations of the Family Pact (2012) and the bylaws concering the house law for further information on legal matters in the Grand Ducal Family.

Perspectirazzi: Can We Please Stop Listening to Gossip Rags?!

Did you know that Princess Alexandra had at least three babies? That Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume wants to have the throne now? Or that Grand Duchess Maria Teresa snores? If Luxembourgish gossips rags are to be believed, all these three stories are true. While I myself haven't yet gathered an invitation to the royal bedchamber to research the Grand Duchess' breathing habits at night, I would still wager the guess that all of these stories are entirely made up. And so should you.

Every once in a while, I stumble over royal watchers sharing stories from two Luxembourgish tabloids, both starting with "P", and apparently believing what they say. But the truth is, they should be taken with more than just a grain of salt - better bring in the truckloads. Yes, when I first started following the Grand Ducal Family, I also had an occasional look at them. Usually more to bemuse myself than anything else. A while ago, one of our's actually basically wrote an article for them. A report we published on the blog was simply translated and published by them, including a few inside jokes that didn't make an awful lot of sense in German. Needless to say, they didn't ask whether they could do it - and that's about the quality of their so-called journalism.

To quote the home of all truths, urbandictionary.com, a gossip rag is, "a magazine or blog containing rumour, speculation and trivial information, generally about celebrities. Often presented in a catty manner." We all know them from the supermarket checkout. While one mag will tell us that the marriage of starlet A and starlet B is on the brink of divorce, another one will tell us that they are having their third baby. 

The same concept applies to tabloids and royals. Make up a catchy and oftentimes catty headline, take a picture that you make up to reflect their alleged mood (when, in reality, they were just blinking) - and you've got yourself a bestseller. It's no different for Luxembourg and the Grand Ducal Family. Mind you, they don't have to put up with as many headlines as others but that still doesn't make them any more true. Yes, most people do take them with a truckload of salt and for some they may be wonderful entertainment but that doesn't make some of the headlines any less hurtful to those involved.

The State of Luxarazzi: In the Trough of the Sea

Luxarazzi turns seven this year. That's seven years of big weddings and small snippets of news about the Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg and, by now, three and a half years of not as big weddings and smaller snippets of news about the Princely Family of Liechtenstein. And as it is the case with Middle-European weather, it's not 365 days of sunsine in Luxarazzi Land. Over the course of seven years you do not come home every night and look forward to cover yet another audience or visit to some obscure company. Truth be told, it feels more and more like a struggle.

Luxarazzi has become more as anyone of us ever expected over the last seven years. I don't think one of us even expected for Luxarazzi to last seven years. It has brought us joy, it was fun and we formed great friendships that go beyond this little space on the world wide web. But doing something for seven years, it becomes more and more difficult to still see it for what it is - a hobby - and not a second (or third) job. None of us have ever made any money from Luxarazzi. We use our free time to share our knowledge, news and events.

Back when Luxarazzi started, there was no place to go else to find English-language news and history on the Grand Ducal Family. Somehow royal watching was different back then, it was all about sharing that knowledge with others. Over the years, royal watching changed. Today, it's about whether you like a person or you don't. They either have to be the best thing since sliced bread or pure evil. There's hardly anything inbetween. If I voiced my opinions about the members of the Grand Ducal and Princely Families, you would probably wonder why I run this blog. But then I remember that I do not know them. None of us do. We base our opinions on snippets of their lives, often just pictures - and seriously, you can't judge a person by that. It's something that long bothered me and the reason why I hardly participate in discussions these days. 

My interest in royalty has always come in waves. There have always been times over the past seven years when I didn't keep up with anyone else than the Liechtensteins and Luxembourgs (and that I did just for the sake of this blog). There have also been times when I spent every waking minute on learning about another royal or noble family. To be honest though, I'm currently in the deepest and longest trough of the sea of motivation to continue Luxarazzi in the past seven years. This is not to mean that the blog will shut down tomorrow or next month, but I have started to seriously question the things we do. 

It's not the first time I thought about stopping but my thoughts have never revolved around the topic for so long. I can't say why that is exactly. Maybe it is a certain fatigue after seven years of basically writing about the same stuff over and over again. (I could really use a big wedding or something! Now where can I petition to make that happen?!) It just feels like same old, same old. Nothing new, nothing fresh. There may be 99 nice comments about what we do but it is that one comment that gets you down. Of course nobody has to like what we do but it's hard sometimes to deal with people's expectations and complaints. After all, this is just a hobby. 

A hobby that I couldn't have continued without the help of a great few. A very special thank you goes out to Bonnie for all the daily blogging you do and to Nikki for always cheering me on behind the scenes. And thank you to the millions of site visitors over the years. I understood long ago that we were never going to be the blog that has heaps of comments on their posts but the fact that you keep coming back must mean that you like us. 

And while this may have sounded like a farewell post, it actually isn't. I'm also fairly certain that it comes across as way too negative than actually intended. Like I said, I'm not going to quit Luxarazzi just yet. In fact, I thought about taking a hiatus but I'm actually afraid that I won't miss it as much as I expect and that taking a hiatus would mean goodbye - and I'm not ready to say goodbye. I know that there are hundreds and thousands of blogs that get abandoned all over the internet every day. Luxarazzi has been a part of my life for the past almost seven years (coming on board in 2010) - and it simply means too much to leave it behind.

So instead, I and us need new motivation and that's how YOU come into play. Please tell me and us: What do you like about Luxarazzi? What don't you like about Luxarazzi? What would you change about Luxarazzi if you could? What would you like us to add to Luxarazzi? What have you always wanted to say about Luxarazzi? There are like a gazillion ways to contact us: Either do so via Twitter, Facebook, E-Mail or simply leave us a comment below! It is much appreciated!

Stéphanie's First Solo Engagement

The Hereditary Grand Duchess together with Pierre and Anni Rossy of Schroeder Joalliers
(Photo: Guy Wolff / Luxemburger Wort / Wort.lu)

At what point a new(-ish) princess does her first solo engagement without her hubby, mother-in-law or some other family member by her side always is of quite an interest for many royal watchers. Well, now the wait in Luxembourg's case is over: Probably a little lost in all the trade mission news during the week before last, Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie had her first solo engagement when she visited the Uchihara luxury jewellery store in Tokyo to view and promote their section of Schroeder jewellery.

Schroeder Joalliers was established in 1877 by Lambert Schroeder, who had left Luxembourg during the second half of the 19th century and settled in Chicago where he did an apprenticeship but returned to his home country after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. While run by the second generation of the family, the jeweller became a purveyor to the Grand Ducal Court in 1920 and remains so to this day.

Though they are probably most famous for their watches (which I bet many of the male members of the Grand Ducal Family wear), Schroeder has also created and adjusted jewellery for at least three generations of grand ducal ladies including Grand Duchess Charlotte, Grand Duchess Joséphine-Charlotte and Grand Duchess Maria-Teresa over the past almost 100 years. For example, they revised the Emerald Art Deco Tiara by Chaumet in recent years prior to a state visit by the sovereign couple. In addition, they also manufacture orders such as five or six crosses and badges of the Order of the Oak Crown each year.

Now run by the fifth generation of the Schroeder family, Pierre Rossy, and the sixth generation, his daughters Sophie and Anni, also working for the company, Schroeder Joalliers also has a workshop in Paris in addition to its headquarters in Luxembourg's Grand-Rue. The company has expanded heavily during the past few years. Pieces by Schroeder are now also being sold in China, Japan, Russia and the Arab world in addition to several European countries.

Doing her first solo engagement shortly before her second wedding anniversary places Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie pretty much right in the middle of the time it took the European heirs' and newly married rulers' wives of the last decade and a half to firstly venture out of their palaces and castles on their own.

The quickest of all of them was Princess Charlène of Monaco who did her first solo engagement a week after her wedding while still on her honeymoon. Together with her husband she was in South Africa, where Prince Albert attended an IOC meeting, when she flew alone to Noordhoek, Cape Town, and participated in a press conference with Archbishop Desmond Tutu to discuss the charity "The Giving Organisation" (of which they are both co-patrons) five days after her wedding.

Also pretty quick off the blocks were Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, who did her first solo engagement on June 14th, 2004, exactly one month after her wedding when she attended the National Pony Championships in Jutland, as well as the the Duchess of Cornwall, who visited the Southampton General Hospital on May 23, 2005, while her wedding to the Prince of Wales took place on April 9.

In difference, it took the Duchess of Cambridge about half a year before attending her first solo engagement while standing in for her father-in-law who was at a funeral in Saudi Arabia. On October 26, 2011, the Duchess hosted a charity cocktail reception for "In Kind Direct", a patronage of the Prince of Wales, at Clarence House. She was famously married on April 29, 2011.

Queen Máxima of the Netherlands' (at the time still Princess Máxima) first solo appearance, a visit to the Meuse County Hospital in the province of Sittard, occured on August 16, 2003, around 18 months after her (02/02/2002) wedding to the then Prince of Orange.

Coming in seventh place is Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie of Luxembourg who had her first solo engagement very recently on October 10, 2014, two years minus eleven days after her civil wedding on October 19, 2012. (Or one year and 355 days if you want to count from the religious wedding a day later.)

Following the Hereditary Grand Duchess in the ranking is Queen Letizia of Spain. The then Princess of Asturias made her first appearance sans her husband, mother-in-law or any other family member accompanying her on October 9, 2006, about two and a half years after her wedding, which took place on May 22, 2004. For her first solo engagement Queen Letizia visited the Pozuela de Alarcon School.

The presumed next on the list is Queen Mathilde of the Belgians. I say presumed because we think that the former Duchess of Brabant's first solo engagement occured in May 2002 as part of the Belgian delegation to a United Nations conference on children, at least according to the information we could locate online. This would be around three years after her wedding which took place on December 4, 1999. [Edited to add: Queen Mathilde's first engagemnt was in fact much earlier, a social visit on February 29th, 2000 to be exact. Many thanks to Jelka of Modekoningin Mathilde for the information!]

Of the woman marrying the rulers, heirs or heir's heirs of Europe within the last one and a half decades, it took Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway the longest time to do her first solo engagement. She married the Crown Prince on August 25, 2001, and did her first solo engagement in January 2005 when visiting Malawi on a charity trip about three and a half years after tieing the knot.

A quick note to end this post: I probably do not need to tell you that we do not take responsibility for the correctness of all the dates mentioned above. Of course we used the utmost care to locate all the correct dates for the first solo engagements of the ladies mentioned above, however, it is entirely possible that one them slipped through our hands. All the information was gathered from painstaking research all over the internet. A very special and huge thank you in this regard goes to Lea, who did the great majority of research going into this post!

Stéphanie vs. Claire

During the past few days and weeks the German media, Bunte and Gala in particular, felt called upon themselves to publish articles comparing Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie and Princess Claire to each other with (unsurprisingly) mostly favourable outcomes for the German wife of Prince Félix. (German and commoner simply trumps Belgian-born and aristocrat, you know.)

Usually we try to refrain from commentary about what others publish but this time around I felt like I also wanted to give my two cents. First of all, get your facts straight. Gala's article mentions "Claire immediately stroke the eye of Prince Félix while attending the Swiss boarding school Beau Soleil. They fell in love." Um, no. Prince Félix and Princess Claire didn't start dating until several years after leaving school. Prince Félix has had at least two serious girlfriends between finishing school and dating his wife. 

In difference, the very same article states that all that is known about the first meeting of the Hereditary Grand Ducal Couple is that it was at a party. "They kept their relationship a secret. Romance? No chance!" Honestly, I have no idea from what they are drawing that conclusion. Also, I wouldn't exactly call Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume and Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie's pre-engagement relationship a secret. Yes, they mostly tried to fly under the radar but they did attend events together. They simply did not pose for photographers together like Prince Félix and Princess Claire chose to. However, the Hereditary Grand Duke did acknowledge having a girlfriend in interviews for his 30th birthday.

The same Gala article also declares the birth of Princess Amalia and the lack of a birth on the Hereditary Grand Ducal Couple's part a race. I, however, fail to see how the birth of a child is an Olympic discipline. Every couple has to decide for themselves when they feel ready to have a baby. Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie has stated prior to her wedding that she would like to wait a little, even up to three years. Who knows whether they have even been trying. Gala apparently does, as they also claim to know that Princess Claire was already pregnant at the time of her wedding. So I guess they have their correspondents stationed right in the Grand Ducal bedrooms.

Yes I know, I shouldn't get worked up about this and magazines always fabricate headlines in order to attract readers but if find it especially sad that even in the 21th century the success of a princess is still measured by the fact whether she has given birth to a child or not. I thought we have long moved past the times during which a woman's uterus was the most important part of her body and giving birth to as many children as possible was a merit. No woman is a failure because she hasn't been able to give birth (yet). If you are indeed trying to conceive and it isn't working, you don't need the outside world to give comments about it what a failure you are. You don't need to look further in the royal world than Princess Charlène of Monaco to see what the pressure of needing to give birth to an heir does. If the whole thing would indeed be a race, Princess Tessy would have won anyway. Oh right, she isn't German and hardly known so she wouldn't attract readership. My bad.

Another part of the article that seems questionable is the statement that Princess Claire simply melts the hearts of all the Luxembourgers and (as an implication) Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie does not. See, even though I have been following every single event of both of them since their respective weddings, I have a hard time judging that considering that Princess Claire has done what? Four - five if you count Prince Gabriel's communion - official appearances in Luxembourg since her wedding?! She watched a tennis match together with her husband, she attended the international bazaar together with her mother- and sister-in-law, she waved from the balcony during the Octave celebrations, and she visited a charity. Plus, there was also a trip to Japan and a few wine business related things but there weren't too many regular Luxembourgers present for that.

I am not trying to pass judgement on either Princess Claire, who doesn't have an official role in Luxembourg, or Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie but I fail to see what merits Gala's opinion. All I can say is that from the videos I have seen of people meeting the Hereditary Grand Duchess, from interviews I have heard of people having met the Hereditary Grand Duchess and from people I personally know who have met the Hereditary Grand Duchess, she does seem pretty popular with all of them. (And yes, I'm sure there are people who she is not popular with but that's life. Not everyone is universally loved. Not even chocolate.) Curiously enough, beneath an article by Tageblatt about Gala's article, there seems to be more support for Hereditary Grand Duchess.

Bunte basically takes the same line though they always backtrack a little towards the end of the articles. They'd also like us to believe that the Hereditary Grand Duchess is jealous of her sister-in-law due to her giving birth to a child as that's clearly the only merit in a woman's life, and that she is trying to diminish the commoner origins of Princess Claire cause of her statement about the job of a princess not being something you can learn but something that comes from the heart. (No, I don't get the correlation either.)

Lastly, to those banging on about Princess Claire being a commoner and Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie being an aristocrat... You know that in the good ol' days of equal marriages, both of them would have been considered a mésalliance? A mere countess, no matter how old her family, certainly wasn't considered the suitable bride of an heir to the throne. Look no further than the most famous example, Countess Sophie Chotek.

Tessy, a Princess All Along?

When we discovered that the cour grand-ducale had uploaded a few new visuals to the section of Prince Louis and Princess Tessy, we also had a look at their biographies as new pictures often also mean biographical updates and right we were. However, the changes brought up a whole lot of confusion because it makes some weird statements that seem to rewrite history.

The French and German version of Princess Tessy's biography now state that upon her marriage in 2006, the former Tessy Antony became "Her Royal Highness Princess Tessy of Nassau" and in 2009  received the titles of Princess of Luxembourg (German and French versions) and Princess of Bourbon-Parma (French version).

Now, especially the first part will come as a big surprise for any follower of the Grand Ducal Family, as in 2006 the cour grand-ducale issued a press release saying that the wife of the third son of the Grand Duke would be plain "Mme Tessy de Nassau" upon her marriage and the couple's thank you card read "Son Altesse Royale le Prince Louis de Luxembourg et Madame Tessy de Nassau..."

On June 23, 2009, the cour grand-ducale issued another press release saying that the Grand Duke had conferred to his daughter-in-law the title "Princess of Luxembourg" and the style "Royal Highness" and that her sons would henceforth be "Princes of Nassau" and "Royal Highnesses" just as the children of any other offspring of a younger son of the monarch. (Unfortunately, we have never been able to locate the decree stating exactly that as even the Grand Duke as fountain of honour can't make title elevations by press release). At no point prior to this date were titles ever used in association with Tessy or her young sons. She was not mentioned as "Princess Tessy of Nassau" in the statement and it was specifically noted that she had only been given the style of Royal Highness on that date. We wonder why it would be necessary to specifically give her the style of Royal Highness in this action if she had received it upon her marriage as indicated in the French and German versions of both her and Prince Louis' biographical sections? It feels entirely too consistent for all of this to be a mere hiccup or the general result of lack of knowledge on the part of one person...

The English version of her biography alone provides the (correct) information that Tessy Antony became Tessy de Nassau upon her marriage and received the titles Princess of Luxembourg, Princess of Nassau and Princess of Bourbon-Parme only on June 23, 2009. The information included in this version of her biography coincides with the statements made in 2006 and 2009 and is, in our view, the most accurate of the three versions related to history of titles associated with Princess Tessy.

While the press release of 2009 did not mention the title of Princess of Bourbon-Parma (de Bourbon de Parme), I'm going to cut the cour some slack here as I could very well imagine that the Bourbon-Parma (and Nassau) title(s) simply appeared as natural consequences of the conferral of the Luxembourg title.

I have no idea why the cour apparently seems to rewrite history in such a manner. They have been terribly inconsistent with titles and such in the past - one example being Countess Stéphanie de Lannoy getting engaged to the Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg and then marrying the Crown Prince of Luxembourg in the English version of her biography.

After having discussed this matter amongst ourselves extensively for a long time, we also fail to see based on which law Tessy would have become a "Princess of Nassau" back in 2006. At best, she could have been "Countess Tessy of Nassau" in accordance with a decree issued by Grand Duke Jean in 1995 (active at the time) stating that the wives and children of princes who conduct marriages without the consent of the head of the House would be titled as such.

The new biographies also read as if Gabriel and Noah have been princes since the day of their births. This is an especially dubious claim in the case of the older son of Prince Louis and Princess Tessy, who was born prior to the marriage of his parents (no judgement, just a statement of fact). At the same time that it was stated that Tessy would be "Madame de Nassau", it was also said that the couple's first son is "Gabriel de Nassau" without any style or title but with a very illustrious last name. Just like their mother, he and his brother were elevated to rank of "Princes of Nassau" and the style "Royal Highnesses" in 2009.

I also note that Princess Tessy's biography now states that she received the Order of the Gold Lion of the House of Nassau in 2010 which is another HUGE surprise considering that Grand Duchess Joséphine-Charlotte and Grand Duchess Maria Teresa only received it shortly before their respective husband ascended to the throne. Hereditary Grand Duchess Stéphanie did not become a member of the Order upon her marriage and as of April last year only had the Civil and Military Order of Merit of Adolphe of Nassau (and we haven't seen her wearing any order since).

If it is indeed true that Princess Tessy was given the highest Luxembourgish order, I dearly hope that Grand Duke Henri also took the time to confer the same honour to his two sisters, Princess Marie-Astrid and Princess Margaretha, and his sister-in-law, Princess Sibilla. Especially Princess Marie-Astrid and Princess Margaretha have rendered decades of service to the Grand Duchy and its people. Even though it goes largely unnoticed these days, both princesses (as well as Princess Sibilla) have a number of patronages and still regularly attend events in relation to these. I fail to see what Princess Tessy, who only took up individual duties together with her husband last year, did to merit this lofty distinction apart from getting married, being discreet and becoming the mother of two adorable princes. I am of the opinion that the royal houses generally give out highest orders amongst themselves too lightly, but at least I hope that the Grand Duke has thanked his sisters and sister-in-law for their years of work in private because it appears as if they are still only given membership of the Civil and Military Order of Merit of Adolphe of Nassau.

On a less confusing and brighter note, we finally know the full name of Prince Noah now, which is Noah Etienne Guillaume Gabriel Matthias Xavier.

Do not take this article to read that we are not in favor of the elevation of Princess Tessy and the young princes. We have always advocated that Prince Louis' wife and children be fully integrated into the Grand Ducal House and Family and accorded styles and titles. We also felt, as readers know, that Princess Tessy receiving her own section on the official website was long, long overdue. It is just that these peculiar changes of history, inconsistencies and inaccuracies are most apparent in the official biographies dedicated to her. We really dislike changes of history, inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

[Update: FYI, changes have been made to the biography since.]