Liechtenstein royals threaten lawsuit over dynasty reforms
Feud in Europe’s wealthiest monarchy deepens after Prince Alois tightens control over family members
A family dispute is consuming Europe’s wealthiest monarchy, with some royals threatening to sue Liechtenstein’s de facto ruler over reforms they say tighten his grip on their dynastic status — and the allowances that come with it.
The rebellion was sparked last month when Hereditary Prince Alois pushed through seemingly progressive overhauls, opening succession to women and giving them voting rights in family affairs. But the measures also weakened checks by relatives and expanded Alois’s authority over their titles, coats of arms and dynastic membership.
Two dissenting members of the Princely House told the FT the changes have financial implications because dynastic status affects allowances from the family’s multibillion-dollar fortune. Much of that wealth is centred on LGT, the private bank owned by the Princely House and overseen by Alois’s brother, Prince Max. For 2025, LGT paid the princely family a dividend of about $878mn.
The Princely House said Alois is the “beneficiary of the family assets” and is required by the House Law governing the family to support members who fall into financial difficulty “insofar as the income from the assets so permits”.
The dissenting royals insist their confrontation with Alois is not about money — but about having equal rights with their 42,000 subjects.
“Our rights are cut off,” said a dissenting prince, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “Just because we’re princes, it doesn’t mean we don’t have basic rights.”
The prince said a lawsuit against Alois’s reforms had been in the works for “a few months” with the support of “many” other family members.
The two family members said concerns about the reputation of both the bank and the dynasty had been heightened by recent revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files, including that LGT employed a woman close to the late paedophile financier who remained in contact with him after he was convicted while at the bank.
A spokesperson for the bank said: “The individual referred to completed a four-month student internship at LGT,” adding the institution had “no knowledge of any private contact” between her and Epstein.
Dissent within the Princely House was substantial when the reforms were approved in August: almost a third of the 50 princes then eligible to vote opposed them, according to an internal letter from Vaduz Castle. The dissenting prince and the second family member who spoke to the FT believe the true level of opposition was “much higher”.
The Princely House denied that the reforms increased the monarch’s “constitutional powers”, saying many of the changes were technical or codified existing practice and that family members’ rights are subject to “oversight by representative bodies of the family”.
It declined to comment on the planned lawsuit, saying that “as a matter of principle, we do not comment on rumours or speculation”.
Lawyers advising dissenting family members are examining possible domestic proceedings, as well as a human rights challenge that could ultimately reach the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
One argument under consideration is whether their right to family life is adequately protected, given that the reforms affect their status within the family.
Their bid is complicated by the fact that the House Law sits outside the country’s constitution, even though it determines matters including who may inherit Liechtenstein’s throne — a position that carries the power to veto laws, dismiss governments and dissolve parliament.
The Council of Europe’s body of legal experts called this arrangement “astonishing” when it examined constitutional reforms proposed by the Princely House more than two decades ago.
“We can’t go anywhere to protect ourselves from Alois,” the dissenting prince said.
Patricia Schiess, a professor of constitutional law at the Liechtenstein Institute, said the House Law had never, to her knowledge, been reviewed by a court and that there was “no established legal doctrine” on its status.
“The right to a name, the right to marry and questions regarding children born out of wedlock are certainly matters that can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights,” Schiess said.
But she cautioned that any claim would first have to pass through Liechtenstein’s domestic courts and show a connection to an act or omission by the state before being taken up by the ECHR.
The planned legal challenge is expected to focus on how the measures were adopted. The dissenters say Alois broke protocol by holding a postal ballot instead of an in-person vote, as had been customary throughout the monarchy’s 300-year history.
The Princely House rejected “accusations of improper vote conducting” and said the ballots were counted inside Vaduz Castle on August 12 in the presence of Alois, his father, his private secretary and his chief of staff, as well as four other princes.
Relatives were then informed in an official letter that 70 per cent had backed the changes, narrowly clearing the two-thirds majority required to rewrite the House Law. The letter thanked those who had “reservations or held a different view” and urged them to unite behind the decision.
But the prince interviewed by the FT said the result stunned relatives. “We were absolutely surprised by the vote,” he said. “Why would anyone vote against their own interests?”
A lawyer advising the dissident family members wrote in messages seen by the FT that the House Law could be “absolutely void” if the required majority had not been validly reached.
With no obvious route through the Constitutional Court, the lawyer suggested asking Liechtenstein’s civil courts to rule on the amendments’ validity.
Schiess said the consequences of such a ruling were uncertain. “There is no precedent for this,” she said.
Early signs of trouble inside the dynasty had emerged before the vote. In June, Alois said he would veto an initiative to legalise abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy even if Liechtensteiners approved it in a referendum. Dissenting family members describe his stance as imposing his Catholic beliefs on the population.
The Princely House said abortion was a legal matter for Alois as acting head of state and that individual family members had no role in it.
But with the feud deepening, the dissenting prince warned: “If he resists us, then we will have a republic. It’s better to have a republic.”