Talk:Saxe-Gessaphe
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Maans?
[edit]Do I understand it right that agnatically the Afif are Maans? 128.69.51.31 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
absolutely nothing
[edit]Saxe-Gessaphe has absolutely nothing to do with the House of Wettin. Any effort, to create the impression, that people of this mexican-lebanese name-creation belong to the Royal House of Wettin is preposterous: such persons are - if they claim to be members of the Royal House of Wettin, or that they belong to the european nobility, simply impostors. Their real name is Afif, a simple and widespread lebanese name without any link to nobility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.107.253 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- By "absolutely nothing to do with" I take it you mean they're not really descended from Anna as said? —Tamfang (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Of course Alexander Gessaphe is Princess Anna of Saxony's son and the current husband of Princess Gisela of Bavaria (born 1964): those facts have never been in dispute. More importantly, the accuser ignores the adoption of his "Afif" nephew Alexander by the late head of the Royal House of Wettin, Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen in 1999, and that nephew's consequent legal acquisition for himself and his descendants of the name "Prinz von Sachsen", not to mention the prior vote of the members of the dynasty to recognize Alexander's parents' marriage as dynastic and his designation as heir-eventual to the dynasty's legacy. Saying that "Afif" is "a simple and widespread" name in Lebanon "without any link to nobility" is like saying the surname "Stuart" is "simple and widespread...without any link to nobility" in Britain: it is true, but meaningless, since the status of someone with that surname depends upon the specific ancestry of the person to whom one is referring. FactStraight (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder if Prince Rüdigers's parents marriage has ever been dubbed morganatic by agreement between Timo and the Head of the House. Wouldn't it be required that Timo actively agreed to give up his claim?Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. Timo never agreed to give up his claim because there was no reason for him to do so: Neither while reigning nor after mediatization or deposition did German Princely Law in general, or specific German house laws (i.e., Saxon house law), deprive a dynast of his or her succession rights because of his/her misalliance. The consequences fall on that dynast's spouse and children. Timo was always eligible to inherit headship of the junior most branch of the House of Wettin and claim to the Royal Crown of Saxony if all dynasts ahead of him in the succession had pre-deceased him. But that did not happen. Nor has it ever been law or custom for the children of a marriage between a dynast and a person ineligible according to house law to transmit dynastic status because the dynastic parent did not agree to the forfeiture of succession rights. That forfeiture is automatic, the dynast's consent is irrelevant, and no action is necessary to declare the marriage non-dynastic in all dynasties (except that of Spain since 1978, which amended its monarchical constitution to state in Article 57.4 that any dynast's marriage is lawful and dynastic unless disapproved by both the sovereign and the Cortes Generales). The dispute persists because none of the claimants meets the dynastic standard set by the monarchical house laws, and persons who do are not closely affiliated to the dynasty of Saxony and have put forth no claim. FactStraight (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just for arguments sake. As I understand it, the deal was for the "designation of Alexander as dynastic heir in the event that none of them leave sons by dynastically valid marriages". Arguably that didn't discriminate Albert, Margrave of Meissen (1934–2012) from succeeding to the headship before Alexander. The validity of such a deal is also questionable. I don't think that in the previous constitution of Saxony, the King could unilaterally or on the basis of a private agreement, change the succession to the throne. In some systems, potential successors can't even denounce their rights until they have inherited them. Now, while Albert has said that Rüdiger should succeed after he reneged on the earlier deal, doesn't that... or couldn't that, be interpreted as a retroactive and indeed posthumous recognition of the dynastic nature of Timo's marriage by the then head of the House (Albert)? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly the argument put forth by the advocates of Timo's son, Ruediger. Yes, there is also lingering uncertainty about the agnates' 1997 pact: some interpret it to be an agreement that Alexander Afif would succeed upon complete extinction of the royal Saxon agnatic line, while others maintain (e.g., Daniel Willis in Descendants of Louis XIII, 1999, p. 766) it stipulated that Afif would succeed Maria-Emanuel upon the latter's death, bypassing Prince Albert who had been childlessly and non-dynastically married since 1980. Essentially, Albert's consent to this provision would have constituted a unilateral and pre-emptive renunciation (not an unknown act among dynasties of the former Holy Roman Empire when accepted by the head of house, e.g. House of Habsburg-Lorraine). Albert later recognized Ruediger as his successor, but in doing so not only was he retro-demorganatizing the latter, he was unilaterally repudiating the 1990 pact. According to jurist Heinrich Zoepfl, under Privatfürstenrecht (German Princely Law), which remained in effect after abolition of the Holy Roman Empire, marriages of dynasts were ebenbürtig with "...members of families having lost their thrones (Wasa, Bourbon); individuals who are so recognized by the agnates (since the exclusion of the issue of misalliances is established in their favour, they have the power to waive it)...the recognition of a marriage as ebenbürtig cannot be retracted; the recognition can occur implicitly..." Alexander Afif's claim could not, pursuant to these principles, be unilaterally overturned by Albert because they represented a unanimous consensus of agnates (including himself, as well as females, wives and widows alive in 1990), which essentially made Afif a dynast in whom the right to succeed before all but male agnates had been irreversibly vested. The flaw in this rationale is that the royal Saxon constitution required the head of house's permission for a dynastic marriage prior to the wedding, which was obtained subsequently for the marriage of Afif's parents. Timo's marriage was unequal, unapproved and unwaived. That is why I suggested that neither of the self-proclaimed claimants, Alexander or Ruediger, qualifies according to strict royal Saxony law, which would presumably allot the claim to a member of a more distantly related dynasty (Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern). FactStraight (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just for arguments sake. As I understand it, the deal was for the "designation of Alexander as dynastic heir in the event that none of them leave sons by dynastically valid marriages". Arguably that didn't discriminate Albert, Margrave of Meissen (1934–2012) from succeeding to the headship before Alexander. The validity of such a deal is also questionable. I don't think that in the previous constitution of Saxony, the King could unilaterally or on the basis of a private agreement, change the succession to the throne. In some systems, potential successors can't even denounce their rights until they have inherited them. Now, while Albert has said that Rüdiger should succeed after he reneged on the earlier deal, doesn't that... or couldn't that, be interpreted as a retroactive and indeed posthumous recognition of the dynastic nature of Timo's marriage by the then head of the House (Albert)? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. Timo never agreed to give up his claim because there was no reason for him to do so: Neither while reigning nor after mediatization or deposition did German Princely Law in general, or specific German house laws (i.e., Saxon house law), deprive a dynast of his or her succession rights because of his/her misalliance. The consequences fall on that dynast's spouse and children. Timo was always eligible to inherit headship of the junior most branch of the House of Wettin and claim to the Royal Crown of Saxony if all dynasts ahead of him in the succession had pre-deceased him. But that did not happen. Nor has it ever been law or custom for the children of a marriage between a dynast and a person ineligible according to house law to transmit dynastic status because the dynastic parent did not agree to the forfeiture of succession rights. That forfeiture is automatic, the dynast's consent is irrelevant, and no action is necessary to declare the marriage non-dynastic in all dynasties (except that of Spain since 1978, which amended its monarchical constitution to state in Article 57.4 that any dynast's marriage is lawful and dynastic unless disapproved by both the sovereign and the Cortes Generales). The dispute persists because none of the claimants meets the dynastic standard set by the monarchical house laws, and persons who do are not closely affiliated to the dynasty of Saxony and have put forth no claim. FactStraight (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder if Prince Rüdigers's parents marriage has ever been dubbed morganatic by agreement between Timo and the Head of the House. Wouldn't it be required that Timo actively agreed to give up his claim?Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Of course Alexander Gessaphe is Princess Anna of Saxony's son and the current husband of Princess Gisela of Bavaria (born 1964): those facts have never been in dispute. More importantly, the accuser ignores the adoption of his "Afif" nephew Alexander by the late head of the Royal House of Wettin, Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen in 1999, and that nephew's consequent legal acquisition for himself and his descendants of the name "Prinz von Sachsen", not to mention the prior vote of the members of the dynasty to recognize Alexander's parents' marriage as dynastic and his designation as heir-eventual to the dynasty's legacy. Saying that "Afif" is "a simple and widespread" name in Lebanon "without any link to nobility" is like saying the surname "Stuart" is "simple and widespread...without any link to nobility" in Britain: it is true, but meaningless, since the status of someone with that surname depends upon the specific ancestry of the person to whom one is referring. FactStraight (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Ernestine branch
[edit]Aren't all members of the Ernestine branch (the Thuringian duchies of Saxe) also in line to the Saxon throne? Wouldn't they come before any cognatic descendants of the Albertine branch? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)