A divorce court judge has ended the marriage of Prince Louis of Luxembourg and Princess Tessy after making rulings on a row over money.

Mr Justice MacDonald pronounced a decree absolute at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London on Thursday.

Four months ago he published a ruling on the division of money and property following a trial.

Princess Tessy, who was at Thursday’s hearing, had indicated she wanted to challenge that ruling, but the judge ended the marriage after being told she had changed her mind and no longer planned to appeal.

Princess Tessy leaves the High Court in London (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

Mr Justice MacDonald analysed arguments over money at a private trial in London in October and produced a ruling in December.

He said Prince Louis and Princess Tessy, who are both in their early 30s, could be named in media coverage of the case, but placed limits on what could be reported.

The prince is the third son of Grand Duke Henri and Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg and now lives in Paris.

Princess Tessy, a former soldier and now a director at a non-governmental organisation she founded called Professors Without Borders, lives in London.

Mr Justice MacDonald heard that the couple began a relationship in 2004, married in 2006 and had two children.

Prince Louis leaves the High Court (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

Princess Tessy, who was born Tessy Antony, was not of royal descent but had been recognised as a member of the royal family and granted her title by royal decree, the judge was told.

After getting married, they lived in the US and London.

Their marriage broke down during the summer of 2016.

Mr Justice MacDonald decided that Princess Tessy and the children could live in a property the couple had shared when married.

He said the prince would pay the princess “nominal” maintenance and pay child maintenance of £4,000 a year per child.

The judge said he had examined “the relatively complex financial arrangements” of the Luxembourg royal family during the trial.

He said at its heart the dispute was “simply a sad case” involving a couple who were determined to marry for love and had been happy before their “fairytale” soured.