Princess Delphine & Family, News & Events 1; 2020 - 2023

[macedonsky]

The intent of the decree was to rule that the royal princes and princesses would be called princes and princesses "of Belgium". The members of the royal family already were princes and princesses.

If the intent of the decree were to rule on which descendants are princes and princesses, then none of the members of the Belgian royal family were princes and princesses between 1831 and 1891 - which would surely come as a surprise to them.

So they "already were princes and princesses" or "none of the members of the Belgian royal family were princes and princesses"?

They were princes and princesses of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. But it seems Leopold II just could not imagine case with born out of wedlock or marriage with commoner.

 

[Addapalla]

Again, following that interpretation, why was the Count of Flanders referred to as a prince in 1870?

With respect, 1870 appears to be a deflection. There exists -no legal bar- to Delphine and her kids becoming Prince / Princess of Belgium (Royal Highness) as of 1 October 2020.

Delphine and her situation was somehow (!?!) neither anticipated nor accounted for by the legal staff of current and recent kings, and so as Albert's daughter has at long last achieved greater equity with Albert's other kids.

Tatiana-Maria, equity is equity - not intrinsically a terribly special honor. ...This is particularly relevant as the whole matter could have resolved humanely and permanently -ages ago- had Albert and Paola been decent instead of proud.

 

[macedonsky]

I cant imagine that this will be overturned, Im sure the Belgian RF and the PTB in Belgium hardly want an awkward situation where the titles been given and then taken away....

Then they should not to use historical decree for preparing new decree.

Constitution use "legal" for issue whu can succeed. Why in 2015 they use 1891 text? In 1991 they just remove one word and "direct male line" became "direct line", but they can to think about borned out of wedlock, IVF and other situations impossible in XIXc.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is only your [wrong] interpretation. All three decrees conferred title "prince/ss of Belgium" and said nothing about additional conditions "who were already princes".

No, it is not only my interpretation. You can read the text of the decrees of 1891 and 1991 for yourself at this link:
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalbelge.htm

The text of the 2015 decree is at this link:
LOI - WET

For instance, this is article Article 2 of the 2015 decree, quoted earlier in this thread:

In de openbare en private akten die hen aanbelangen, voeren de Prinsen en de Prinsessen, kinderen en kleinkinderen, geboren uit de nakomelingschap in rechte lijn van de Koning, evenals de Prinsen en de Prinsessen, kinderen en kleinkinderen, geboren uit de nakomelingschap in rechte lijn van de Kroonprins of de Kroonprinses, de titel van Prins of Prinses van België volgend op hun voornaam en voor zover ze die voeren, hun familienaam en hun dynastieke titel, en voor de andere titels die hun rechtens hun ascendentie toekomen. Hun voornaam wordt voorafgegaan door het predicaat Zijne of Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid.​

Translation:

In the public and private acts relating to them, the Princes and the Princesses, children and grandchildren, born in direct descendance from His Majesty King Albert II carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium following their forename, and, so far as they carry them, their family name and their dynastic title and ahead of the other titles to which their ancestry gives them the right. Their forename is preceded by the predicate His or Her Royal Highness.​

What about grand dukes of Russia, who are not princes? Arcdukes of Austria who are not princes of Modena?

The Russian title translated as grand duke would be more accurately translated as grand prince. Regardless, the laws of the defunct Russian and Austrian monarchies do not determine modern Belgian law.

 

[macedonsky]

With respect, 1870 appears to be a deflection. There exists -no legal bar- to Delphine and her kids becoming Prince / Princess of Belgium (Royal Highness) as of 1 October 2020.

I'm sorry but Delphine and her kids became Prince/ss since their birthdays. It was not court decision to make them princes/ses. It were 1891 and 1991 decrees which not excluded borned out of wedlock and their issue. The court just use these decrees.

 

[Prinsara]

No, it is not only my interpretation. You can read the text of the decrees of 1891 and 1991 for yourself at this link:
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalbelge.htm

The text of the 2015 decree is at this link:
LOI - WET

For instance, this is article Article 2 of the 2015 decree, quoted earlier in this thread:

In de openbare en private akten die hen aanbelangen, voeren de Prinsen en de Prinsessen, kinderen en kleinkinderen, geboren uit de nakomelingschap in rechte lijn van de Koning, evenals de Prinsen en de Prinsessen, kinderen en kleinkinderen, geboren uit de nakomelingschap in rechte lijn van de Kroonprins of de Kroonprinses, de titel van Prins of Prinses van België volgend op hun voornaam en voor zover ze die voeren, hun familienaam en hun dynastieke titel, en voor de andere titels die hun rechtens hun ascendentie toekomen. Hun voornaam wordt voorafgegaan door het predicaat Zijne of Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid.​

Translation:

In the public and private acts relating to them, the Princes and the Princesses, children and grandchildren, born in direct descendance from His Majesty King Albert II carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium following their forename, and, so far as they carry them, their family name and their dynastic title and ahead of the other titles to which their ancestry gives them the right. Their forename is preceded by the predicate His or Her Royal Highness.​

The Russian title translated as grand duke would be more accurately translated as grand prince. Regardless, the laws of the defunct Russian and Austrian monarchies do not determine modern Belgian law.

It's weaselly-written and reflexive, though. In English, it's very easy to flip that and say that the "children and grandchildren, born in direct descendance from His Majesty King Albert II" are the princes and princesses, even if Delphine's team played it safe.

I'm sure it must be equally easy to do in French or Flemish, or the court wouldn't have ruled the way it did.

 

[Marengo]

All Belgian newspapers (that I have read) highlight that Delphine will not receive a dotation. There has been made a personal exception explicitly for Astrid and Laurent.

According to 'De Standaard' 'the losing party' [King Albert II] will have to pay the legal fees of nearly 10.000 Euros.

 

[Prinsara]

All Belgian newspapers (that I have read) highlight that Delphine will not receive a dotation. There has been made a personal exception explicitly for Astrid and Laurent.

According to 'De Standaard' 'the losing party' [King Albert II] will have to pay the legal fees of nearly 10.000 Euros.

Sorry, I just laughed at the thought of Albert losing his money.

That's a whole two days in refused-DNA testing!

 

[macedonsky]

No, it is not only my interpretation. You can read the text of the decrees of 1891 and 1991 for yourself at this link:

You can read my series for yourself at this link: https://euro-royals.livejournal.com/924286.html

Delpnine is the Princess of Belgien in accordance with decree 1891, not 1991 and not 2015:

Dans les actes publics et privés qui les concernent, les princes et les princesses issus de la descendance masculine et directe de feu Sa Majesté Léopold Ier, seront qualifiés de princes et princesses de Belgique, à la suite de leurs prénoms et avant la mention de leur titre originaire de duc ou duchesse de Saxe.

I am sure that conferrring the titles of prince/ss of Belgien made the newly prince/ss of Belgium the prince/ss. As far as I read many decrees about Russian and British royals I am sure Leopold II could not imagine your intepretation that only prince/ss of nonamed royal house can be belgian royals.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's weaselly-written and reflexive, though. In English, it's very easily to flip that and say that the "children and grandchildren, born in direct descendance from His Majesty King Albert II" are the princes and princesses, even if Delphine's team played it safe.

I'm sure it must be equally easy to do in French or Flemish, or the court wouldn't have ruled the way it did.

I think I see your point. But wouldn't the fact that in the 2015 decree there are four articles all with differing "definitions" of "the princes and princesses" give one pause?

With respect, 1870 appears to be a deflection. There exists -no legal bar- to Delphine and her kids becoming Prince / Princess of Belgium (Royal Highness) as of 1 October 2020.

Delphine and her situation was somehow (!?!) neither anticipated nor accounted for by the legal staff of current and recent kings, and so as Albert's daughter has at long last achieved greater equity with Albert's other kids.

1870 is evidence for the intended purpose of the royal decrees in 2020. The phrasing "the Princes and the Princesses" is identical in the three decrees.

If I understand correctly, your interpretation is that the royal decrees confer the titles of prince and princess. My point is that if descendants were created princes and princesses by the decrees, they would not have been princes and princesses prior to the decrees.

Tatiana-Maria, equity is equity - not intrinsically a terribly special honor. ...

I am sure we can all agree on that, and I have pointed out why I believe the court's ruling is flawed in that respect.

So they "already were princes and princesses" or "none of the members of the Belgian royal family were princes and princesses"?

According to the documentary evidence and traditional interpretation, the former. Under the interpretation you advocate, the latter.

Then they should not to use historical decree for preparing new decree.

Constitution use "legal" for issue whu can succeed. Why in 2015 they use 1891 text? In 1991 they just remove one word and "direct male line" became "direct line", but they can to think about borned out of wedlock, IVF and other situations impossible in XIXc.

As I answered to Prinsara, they presumably believed the wording "Princes and Princesses" in the 1891 decree was sufficient to exclude illegitimate children, since illegitimate children are not princes and princesses under Belgian nobiliary law.

I'm sorry but Delphine and her kids became Prince/ss since their birthdays. It was not court decision to make them princes/ses. It were 1891 and 1991 decrees which not excluded borned out of wedlock and their issue. The court just use these decrees.

At the times of their births Delphine and her children were not legal descendants of King Leopold I. Even if the 1891 and 1991 decrees had not excluded descendants born out of wedlock (and until recently, the common interpretation was that they did), they would have had no more claim to titles than any other legal descendant of Jacques Boël.

 

[sophie25]

So when Delphine's children marry their spouses will become HRH Prince/Princess too and also any children they have?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So when Delphine's children marry their spouses will become HRH Prince/Princess too and also any children they have?

If the basis of the court's decision was an interpretation of the 2015 Royal Decree which allowed it to apply it to all children (rather than princely children only), as Prinsara and others explained uphread, then no. Going forward, Article 1 of the Royal Decree specifies only children and grandchildren of the King and Crown Prince/ss are HRH and Prince/Princess of Belgium.

However, Joséphine and Oscar's children would nevertheless be princes and princesses and they would carry other ancestral titles (presumably Duchess/Duke of Saxony and Prince/Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) under Article 4.

Translation:

Article 4. The Princes and Princesses, born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, who are not covered by Articles 1 to 3, carry following their forename and, so far as they carry it, their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right.​

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/besluit/2015/11/12/2015021075/justel

Spouses are not addressed by the decree.

On the other hand, if the court based its decision on some other principle, such as all spouses and children having the right to titles, then Delphine's future grandchildren might be HRH and of Belgium after all.

Unfortunately, Delphine's lawyers did not provide any clarification of the basis for the court's decision.

 

[sophie25]

If the basis of the court's decision was an interpretation of the 2015 Royal Decree which allowed it to apply it to all children (rather than princely children only), as Prinsara and others explained uphread, then no. Going forward, Article 1 of the Royal Decree specifies only children and grandchildren of the King and Crown Prince/ss are HRH and Prince/Princess of Belgium.

However, Joséphine and Oscar's children would nevertheless be princes and princesses and they would carry other ancestral titles (presumably Duchess/Duke of Saxony and Prince/Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) under Article 4.

Translation:

Article 4. The Princes and Princesses, born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, who are not covered by Articles 1 to 3, carry following their forename and, so far as they carry it, their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right.​

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/besluit/2015/11/12/2015021075/justel

Spouses are not addressed by the decree.

On the other hand, if the court based its decision on some other principle, such as all spouses and children having the right to titles, then Delphine's future grandchildren might be HRH and of Belgium after all.

Unfortunately, Delphine's lawyers did not provide any clarification of the basis for the court's decision.

So, in effect, a parallel Belgian royal family is going to spring up compromised of a load of HRHs who won't have any direct relationship with the royals who actually work for Belgium. How bizarre that is going to be.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So, in effect, a parallel Belgian royal family is going to spring up compromised of a load of HRHs who won't have any direct relationship with the royals who actually work for Belgium. How bizarre that is going to be.

It may be as few as 3-4 HRHs who won't (as things stand) have any direct relationship with the royals who actually work for Belgium, or there may indeed eventually be an entire parallel extended family of HRHs. Until there is more information about what the court actually decided, we cannot say for sure.


Related to my previous post, I've elaborated here on Delphine's children becoming Duchess and Duke of Saxony, Princess and Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-19.html#post2346112

 

[macedonsky]

However, Joséphine and Oscar's children would nevertheless be princes and princesses and they would carry other ancestral titles (presumably Duchess/Duke of Saxony and Prince/Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) under Article 4.

What? Their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right? Please tell us how O'Hare's ancestry gives them the right to use Saxon titles.

 

[macedonsky]

As I answered to Prinsara, they presumably believed the wording "Princes and Princesses" in the 1891 decree was sufficient to exclude illegitimate children, since illegitimate children are not princes and princesses under Belgian nobiliary law.

Are you aware that Belgian nobiliary law is not the same as Belgian dynastic law?

Even if the 1891 and 1991 decrees had not excluded descendants born out of wedlock

Why "even"? They obviously had not exclude.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What? Their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right? Please tell us how O'Hare's ancestry gives them the right to use Saxon titles.

Not O'Hare's ancestry, but the royal decree of 2015. I have elaborated on this in the Titles and Styles thread.

Are you aware that Belgian nobiliary law is not the same as Belgian dynastic law?

Why "even"? They obviously had not exclude.

The only relevant "dynastic laws" of which I am aware are the royal decrees regulating transmission of the title of Prince/Princess of Belgium. I have linked to and explained the conventional interpretations of the royal decrees in my earlier posts in this thread, as well as the Titles and Styles thread.

 

[ppetrica]

[FONT=&quot]I myself am an illegitimate child, also a "product" of an extramarital affair.
And I completely disagree with this ruling and I no longer have sympathy for Delphine. I'll try to explain why. Please note this is just my personal opinion.
I as a lovechild am not the only victim in "my situation". There are other victims who suffered just as much or even MORE then me: my legal father, my biological father's wife (I happen to respect her a lot) and their two children (my two half-siblings).
My legal father took me in, he gave me his surname, he raised me as his own, he never treated me any differently then he would have treated his real biological child. And for that reason I have no intention of asking for any kind of legal status from my biological father. My legal father unfortunately passed away several years ago. And I am so happy to have had him in my life, so proud and honored to have his surname, so proud and honored to have HIM listed as my father on my official documents. Even if he had been the poorest man in the world and my biological father the richest, most privileged, most famous or most titled man in the world, I would never ever want any other man but my legal father to be the one who I call "father". Not for all the titles or privileges that exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Delphine has been complaining for years that her biological father doesn't acknowledge her and therefore she wants acceptance from him .Yet she rejected her legal father in the same way. So, one man raises her and the moment she finds out that a king is her biological father, she no longer wants to hear about the man who raised her. It seems to me that the kind of acceptance that she has in mind are privileges and titles. I'm sorry, but in my personal opinion when a child wants acceptance from a parent or sibling, that actually means parent's or sibling's love, friendship, trust. And not money, titles or social position. And if love, friendship and trust are the only things that Delphine really wants but unfortunately cannot get from them, in that case they don't deserve her and she should walk away from them with pure heart. Since she[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] hasn't stopped at the point when Albert's acceptance became a legal fact, I tend to believe that [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] having love, friendship and trust isn't what she wants.[/FONT][/FONT]
Yes, this is the 21st century, but the very essence of having a monarchy and not a republic is keeping some of the tradition, that tiny and fragile link with bygone era, that "magic" and "romance" and "pomp and circumstance" that we like. Of course that monarchy must be aligned with modernity, of course we must learn from the past and never again have those primitive attitudes and do those primitive things that modern society has outgrown. But at some point, if we make it too modern, the monarchy loses its appeal and purpose. Being a royal means to have a respect for monarchy, to be aware that it's an honor and duty to be a royal and to act like that. Not to expect privileges for oneself but to be hardworking and humble. And that is what I simply cannot see in Delphine's acts so far.[/FONT]

 

[princess gertrude]

[FONT=&quot]I myself am an illegitimate child, also a "product" of an extramarital affair.
And I completely disagree with this ruling and I no longer have sympathy for Delphine. I'll try to explain why. Please note this is just my personal opinion.
I as a lovechild am not the only victim in "my situation". There are other victims who suffered just as much or even MORE then me: my legal father, my biological father's wife (I happen to respect her a lot) and their two children (my two half-siblings).
My legal father took me in, he gave me his surname, he raised me as his own, he never treated me any differently then he would have treated his real biological child. And for that reason I have no intention of asking for any kind of legal status from my biological father. My legal father unfortunately passed away several years ago. And I am so happy to have had him in my life, so proud and honored to have his surname, so proud and honored to have HIM listed as my father on my official documents. Even if he had been the poorest man in the world and my biological father the richest, most privileged, most famous or most titled man in the world, I would never ever want any other man but my legal father to be the one who I call "father". Not for all the titles or privileges that exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Delphine has been complaining for years that her biological father doesn't acknowledge her and therefore she wants acceptance from him .Yet she rejected her legal father in the same way. So, one man raises her and the moment she finds out that a king is her biological father, she no longer wants to hear about the man who raised her. It seems to me that the kind of acceptance that she has in mind are privileges and titles. I'm sorry, but in my personal opinion when a child wants acceptance from a parent or sibling, that actually means parent's or sibling's love, friendship, trust. And not money, titles or social position. And if love, friendship and trust are the only things that Delphine really wants but unfortunately cannot get from them, in that case they don't deserve her and she should walk away from them with pure heart. Since she[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] hasn't stopped at the point when Albert's acceptance became a legal fact, I tend to believe that [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] having love, friendship and trust isn't what she wants.[/FONT][/FONT]
Yes, this is the 21st century, but the very essence of having a monarchy and not a republic is keeping some of the tradition, that tiny and fragile link with bygone era, that "magic" and "romance" and "pomp and circumstance" that we like. Of course that monarchy must be aligned with modernity, of course we must learn from the past and never again have those primitive attitudes and do those primitive things that modern society has outgrown. But at some point, if we make it too modern, the monarchy loses its appeal and purpose. Being a royal means to have a respect for monarchy, to be aware that it's an honor and duty to be a royal and to act like that. Not to expect privileges for oneself but to be hardworking and humble. And that is what I simply cannot see in Delphine's acts so far.[/FONT]

Thank you for sharing your story with us.

 

[tommy100]

thank you ppetrica for sharing your story! They certainly show another view and one I (with a half sister who has been raised by my own father as his own) agree with though I'm not 100% sure on the dynamics between Delphine and Jacques Boël was/is.

When telling a friend about this case they pointed out Delphine did well given she was born well before Alert became King.

 

[Addapalla]

My legal father took me in, he gave me his surname, he raised me as his own, he never treated me any differently then he would have treated his real biological child.

That was very different from Delphine's experience of Monsieur Boël.
Nice that you had a great dad, but I believe you are comparing apples and oranges here.
It is presumptuous to say what motivates a stranger, and to judge what her needs and wants must be.

 

[AristoCat]

[FONT="] Delphine has been complaining for years that her biological father doesn't acknowledge her and therefore she wants acceptance from him .Yet she rejected her legal father in the same way. So, one man raises her and the moment she finds out that a king is her biological father, she no longer wants to hear about the man who raised her. It seems to me that the kind of acceptance that she has in mind are privileges and titles. I'm sorry, but in my personal opinion when a child wants acceptance from a parent or sibling, that actually means parent's or sibling's love, friendship, trust. And not money, titles or social position. And if love, friendship and trust are the only things that Delphine really wants but unfortunately cannot get from them, in that case they don't deserve her and she should walk away from them with pure heart. Since she[/FONT][FONT="][FONT="] hasn't stopped at the point when Albert's acceptance became a legal fact, I tend to believe that [/FONT][/FONT][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="] having love, friendship and trust isn't what she wants.[/FONT][/FONT] [/FONT]

Thing is, that her stepfather raised her in a stable, secure, safe, hyper-privileged home and if not for that money, there is no way she would have an 'art career' at all. She also had a title so she was part of the aristocracy.

 

[Marengo]

She did not have a title as the Boël's are AFAIK part of the untitled nobility.

Her stepfather did not raise her at all. He may have paid some bills but Delphine barely saw Jacques Boël. After Delphine's birth Sybille, Delphine and often Albert lived as a family in a villa in Knokke for nearly a decade. Without Jacques Boël. After that Sybille divorced mr Boël, she the moved to the UK and married another man. The memories that Delphine do not seem to be very positive, I believe her mother said that mr. Boël was in her eyes a cruel man.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Her stepfather did not raise her at all. He may have paid some bills but Delphine barely saw Jacques Boël. After Delphine's birth Sybille, Delphine and often Albert lived as a family in a villa in Knokke for nearly a decade. Without Jacques Boël. The memories that she does have seem to be bitter, I believe her mother said that mr. Boël was in her eyes a cruel man.

Forgive me for asking, but is it known if Delphine had contact with her royal half-siblings during the time she lived in Knokke?

 

[Marengo]

No she did not. She only met Prince Laurent and Claire in 2008:
https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/prins-laurent-ontmoet-halfzus-delphine-boel~b9d31247/

And in 2019 both she and Prince Laurent attended the funeral service of Pss Stéphanie zu Windisch-Graetz on the Coudenberg. IIRC maria-olivia was there and she said that the prince left early, so they probably did not speak.

According to the gossip press King Philippe (with Elisabeth) and Delphine were spotted in the restaurant Belga Queen in 2018. By coincidence they were seated at tables that were not far apart. They did not speak.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

She did not have a title as the Boël's are part of the untitled nobility.

Isn't Jacques Boël a Jonkheer and thus Delphine a (former?) Jonkvrouw?

I realize that as French speakers they probably do not use the title.

 

[Marengo]

Yes they are, but Jonkheer and Jonkvrouw is not considered a title but a prefix used for the untitled nobility. You are right that in French no prefix.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes they are, but Jonkheer and Jonkvrouw is not considered a title but a prefix used for the untitled nobility. You are right that in French no prefix.

That is one of the interesting differences between the Netherlands and Belgium; in the latter it is considered a title.

https://diplomatie.belgium.be/nl/Diensten/Protocol/adel/faq/
https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/services/Protocol/nobility_and_honorary_distinctions/nobility/faq

5. Is "jonkheer"/"jonkvrouw"/"knight" a title of nobility?

Yes (see decision of the Court of Cassation, 1927).

 

[AristoCat]

Isn't Jacques Boël a Jonkheer and thus Delphine a (former?) Jonkvrouw?

I realize that as French speakers they probably do not use the title.

So more along the lines of gentry then?

 

[PrinceNomad]

The stigma of being born out of wedlock shouldn't be on the child. Both parents made their choice and should've dealt with it long ago. Even royals lie and can deny the truth. Hopefully the family will come together and heal.