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

[Mbruno]

That's correct with the modern interpretation, but the document does say "legitime", doesn't it? Were Albert's younger siblings the first time "strictly legal" was considered?

King Albert II's half sisters are not in the line of succession because the constitutional amendment that introduced cognatic succession only applies to Albert II's descendants. It is a similar situation to that of King Carl Gustaf's sisters in Sweden. It has nothing to do with legitimacy or lack thereof.


In fact, I suspect legitimacy was not a factor either in the court's ruling regarding Delphine's title. The court simply applied the royal decree of 2015, whose legacy clause says that children and grandchildren of Albert II are princes/princesses of Belgium and carry the style of Royal Highness prefixed to their given names. The royal decree does not mention legitimacy or "children born of a marriage" as is the case for example of the Dutch law on membership of the Royal House.

In short, Delphine got the title because the wording of King Philippe's own royal decree of 2015 (and Baudouin's previous royal decree of 1991) was sloppy. And I suspect the King won't dispute the ruling. As long as Delphine and her children are not included in the line of succession, or given an official role, a royal residence and a state stipend, being HRH Prince/Princess is of little consequence.


EDIT: BTW, the Royal House is not to be blamed for the poor wording of the royal decrees since they are drafted by the government. The responsible ministers who countersigned the royal decree are the ones who should accept the blame.

 

[alterego]

Delphine is Albert's legal child, so Jacques Boël no longer has an obligation to give her a centime. It's Albert we now speculate about moving money around to avoid her.

What I meant is, even if Boël were still her legal father, depite not being able to disinherit her completely, Boël would still be able to make sure that she has little to inherit from his fortune. That is, remaining being a Boël to Delphine may not be as 'smart' as she claimed to be~ ?

 

[alterego]

In short, Delphine got the title because the wording of King Philippe's own royal decree of 2015 (and Baudouin's previous royal decree of 1991) was sloppy. And I suspect the King won't dispute the ruling. As long as Delphine and her children are not included in the line of succession, or given an official role, a royal residence and a state stipend, being HRH Prince/Princess is of little consequence.

I doubt Delphine's children would be in the line of succession, neither would Delphine herself I believe despite being an HRH now~ (as long as the King does not give his permission to her marriage~ ?)

 

[Mbruno]

I doubt Delphine's children would be in the line of succession, neither would Delphine herself I believe despite being an HRH now~ (as long as the King does not give his permission to her marriage~ ?)

Yes, that is a good point. In the worst case scenario of a court ruling in favor of succession rights, it could be argued that Delphine excluded herself from the succession by marrying without the King's consent.

 

[Prinsara]

Yes, that is a good point. In the worst case scenario of a court ruling in favor of succession rights, it could be argued that Delphine excluded herself from the succession by marrying without the King's consent.

We don't even know if she's legally married.

But wouldn't the other lawyer argue that as she had no expectation of succeeding, she could not have been expected to seek or obtain the King's consent (especially if said King was Albert!)?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Royal duties, a live as a working royal is allways on behalf of the monarch; so without said monarch giving you any duties, there is NO life as senior royal.

That applied to royal titles as well - until October 1.

However, Princess Delphine's attorney has now indicated that the court did not grant her a royal endowment or a role as a working royal representing the country.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/...rg-king-albert-philippe-laurent-astrid-royal/

No, they can't be. That's reserved by decree for legitimate descendants of Leopold I. (Also, someone here or in the media would have said something.)

To be more precize: descendants of Leopold I whom are legal successors.

No, the precise wording of Article 85 of the Constitution (not a decree) is "legitimate".

Delphine's lawyer contended that she is "a legitimate child like any other" and petitioned the court to grant her the "same privileges, titles, and capacities" as her three half-siblings.

However, the court evidently did not fully endorse their argument, as it did not grant her the same role as a working royal or the same taxpayer-funded endowment as her half-siblings.

 

[Denville]

What I meant is, even if Boël were still her legal father, depite not being able to disinherit her completely, Boël would still be able to make sure that she has little to inherit from his fortune. That is, remaining being a Boël to Delphine may not be as 'smart' as she claimed to be~ ?

But he's not her legal father. And it seems like he's a lot richer than Albert so if she mainly wanted money, she would have been better to remain as his legal daughter.

 

[Denville]

We don't even know if she's legally married.

But wouldn't the other lawyer argue that as she had no expectation of succeeding, she could not have been expected to seek or obtain the King's consent (especially if said King was Albert!)?

If she is married to Ohare I dont see how anyone could argue that she had to obtain the Kings consent for her marriage since she was not a member of the RF at the time.

 

[alterego]

But he's not her legal father. And it seems like he's a lot richer than Albert so if she mainly wanted money, she would have been better to remain as his legal daughter.

mmmm, I meant, even if she were Boël's legal daughter, what she could inherit from Boël could still be little (if not nothing at all). According to Delphine, it seems that he has already managed to make such an arrangement that Delphine would not benefit from being his heiress even when she was still legally his daughter~

 

[Tatiana Maria]

King Albert II's half sisters are not in the line of succession because the constitutional amendment that introduced cognatic succession only applies to Albert II's descendants. It is a similar situation to that of King Carl Gustaf's sisters in Sweden. It has nothing to do with legitimacy or lack thereof.

The government does not agree that it has nothing to do with legitimacy.

The Prime Minister clarified to the Senate in 1991 that the issue of King Leopold and Princess Lilian, including their son Prince Alexandre, were not in the line of succession regardless of gender because the marriage of their parents was not valid as a political act, though it was valid as a civil marriage.

As a result, the children of the marriage are treated as illegitimate for constitutional law (but legitimate for civil law).

https://www.senate.be/lexdocs/S0509/S05091665.pdf

In fact, I suspect legitimacy was not a factor either in the court's ruling regarding Delphine's title. The court simply applied the royal decree of 2015, whose legacy clause says that children and grandchildren of Albert II are princes/princesses of Belgium and carry the style of Royal Highness prefixed to their given names. The royal decree does not mention legitimacy or "children born of a marriage" as is the case for example of the Dutch law on membership of the Royal House.

In short, Delphine got the title because the wording of King Philippe's own royal decree of 2015 (and Baudouin's previous royal decree of 1991) was sloppy.

That's very possible (though as I've mentioned, the clause "the Princes and the Princesses" was intended to apply the decree only to descendants who were already entitled to be princes and princesses), but that is only speculation.

Nothing has actually been stated about the legal reasoning of the court.

If she is married to Ohare I dont see how anyone could argue that she had to obtain the Kings consent for her marriage since she was not a member of the RF at the time.

The government evidently decided in 1991 that princess Astrid's marriage had to obtain consent, retroactively, through the transitory provision of the constitutioal amendment, even though she was not a member of the line of succession at the time of her marriage.

https://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/GrondwetUK.pdf

And I suspect the King won't dispute the ruling. As long as Delphine and her children are not included in the line of succession, or given an official role, a royal residence and a state stipend, being HRH Prince/Princess is of little consequence.

It was of enough consequence to the King that he established legal restrictions on inheriting the predicate HRH and the title "of Belgium", despite his action reportedly angering his sister, brother-in-law, and brother.

I also do not expect the King to dispute the ruling, but I disagree as to the reason.

mmmm, I meant, even if she were Boël's legal daughter, what she could inherit from Boël could still be little (if not nothing at all). According to Delphine, it seems that he has already managed to make such an arrangement that Delphine would not benefit from being his heiress even when she was still legally his daughter~

But the same legal strategies for minimizing her inheritance would be available to King Albert, wouldn't they?

 

[Denville]

mmmm, I meant, even if she were Boël's legal daughter, what she could inherit from Boël could still be little (if not nothing at all). According to Delphine, it seems that he has already managed to make such an arrangement that Delphine would not benefit from being his heiress even when she was still legally his daughter~

Albert can do the same thing, if he wishes and he has so long denied that Delphine is his daughter.. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to do her out wahtever money he could.
Anyway situation does not arise since she has not been Boel's legal child for some time and is now recognised as Albert's child

 

[Prinsara]

mmmm, I meant, even if she were Boël's legal daughter, what she could inherit from Boël could still be little (if not nothing at all). According to Delphine, it seems that he has already managed to make such an arrangement that Delphine would not benefit from being his heiress even when she was still legally his daughter~

I think that was after Delphine had already started her campaign against Albert. He may not have been a good father, but he does seem to have been willing to leave Delphine the usual (fabulous) amount before that. Of course, he's still alive...

 

[alterego]

But the same legal strategies for minimizing her inheritance would be available to King Albert, wouldn't they?

Albert can do the same thing, if he wishes and he has so long denied that Delphine is his daughter.. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to do her out wahtever money he could.
Anyway situation does not arise since she has not been Boel's legal child for some time and is now recognised as Albert's child

I was just saying the statement/argument that she should remain being a Boël if it is for the money may not be valid..... ?

 

[Denville]

I was just saying the statement/argument that she should remain being a Boël if it is for the money may not be valid..... ?

Even if Boel cut her money down, He has a LOT more it seems that Albert and could not completely disinherit her... so she would have had something. If Albert tries to wriggle the money down, she will likely get less .. and I gather than Boel only tried ot cut back on her money when she embroiled in the dispute with Albert. if she had said nothing, kept quiet and stayed As Boel's daughter she woudl have inherited a lot of money.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is a difference in being legal child and being a legal successor. The point was that in most (if not all) EU countries the notion of "illegitimate children" does not exist.

Benjamin Lasceslles is a legal child according to this Convention, which has been ratoified by the UK in 1981 and by Ireland in 1988. Countries which ratified it must ensure that children born outside marriage are provided with legal rights as stipulated in the text of this convention:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/085

But that Benjamin Lascelles is a legal child of the Earl of Harewood does not make him a legal successor to the Earldom.

Likewise, my point was that being a legal child of the holder of a Belgian title does not make someone a legal successor to that title under the current regulations, on which the court ruling had no effect, as far as we know.

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

As a side note, it seems the government has not updated its statement that "the King is in no way obliged to recognise [...] a title of nobility."

 

[alterego]

I think that was after Delphine had already started her campaign against Albert. He may not have been a good father, but he does seem to have been willing to leave Delphine the usual (fabulous) amount before that. Of course, he's still alive...

Not sure when Boël decided to do so~ but if he's as cruel as Delphine said, I doubt he would be willing to let her inherit any of his fortune even before the story being made public.... I somehow remembered that one of the reasons Delphine would like to be recognised as the daughter of King Albert II was that she was not (or no longer) considered/treated by Boël as his daughter (as he managed to disinherit her in his way)~ I could have remembered this wrong..... ?

 

[Addapalla]

Forcing your way into a family through the courts is maybe not the best way to ensure you a warm welcome.

No one has ever gone to court in pursuit of a warm welcome - and Delphine has her own family for warm welcomes.

She was fighting for legal recognition as Albert's child after he persisted in his hurtful denials of her - denials which proved spurious when he submitted to a DNA test (under duress!). Delphine's hard-won victory is the direct result of Albert's prideful stubbornness - any hope of warmth was likely demolished by the King's uncompromising attitude.

 

[Mbruno]

The government does not agree that it has nothing to do with legitimacy.

The Prime Minister clarified to the Senate in 1991 that the issue of King Leopold and Princess Lilian, including their son Prince Alexandre, were not in the line of succession regardless of gender because the marriage of their parents was not valid as a political act, though it was valid as a civil marriage.

As a result, the children of the marriage are treated as illegitimate for constitutional law (but legitimate for civil law).

https://www.senate.be/lexdocs/S0509/S05091665.pdf

We had that discussion before. Regardless of the government's opinion, that interpretation has never been endorsed by a court of law and, in any case, no such ruling would be required as Albert's half sisters were already born with no succession rights under the constitution of Belgium and did not acquire succession rights when the constitution was amended.


The government's opinion would be relevant only to determine whether Prince Alexandre had succession rights or not. But, again, even if Alexandre were considered "legitimate" from a constitutional point of view, he was ultimately excluded from the succession when he married without the King's consent. Probably, if he had petioned the courts to confirm his succession rights (before getting married), the courts would most likely have ruled in his favor as the government's opinion had no grounding in the constitution (government consent is not required for a marriage of the King, nor is marriage a political act that is subject to ministerial responsibility).

 

[Denville]

Not sure when Boël decided to do so~ but if he's as cruel as Delphine said, I doubt he would be willing to let her inherit any of his fortune even before the story being made public.... I somehow remembered that one of the reasons Delphine would like to be recognised as the daughter of King Albert II was that she was not (or no longer) considered/treated by Boël as his daughter (as he managed to disinherit her in his way)~ I could have remembered this wrong..... ?

From what I've understood, he could not legally disinherit her...in the sense that he had to leave her SOME money, if she was legally his daughter. she chose to give up being his daughter because she wanted to be recognised by her blood father, who had been a father to her as a child...but had then rejected her. Boel was never a father to her in terms of being close emotionally.. he just accepted paternity of her...

 

[alterego]

From what I've understood, he could not legally disinherit her...in the sense that he had to leave her SOME money, if she was legally his daughter. she chose to give up being his daughter because she wanted to be recognised by her blood father, who had been a father to her as a child...but had then rejected her. Boel was never a father to her in terms of being close emotionally.. he just accepted paternity of her...

Indeed no, Boël could not disinherit her technically according to the law of Belgium, but he could easily do something, e.g. transferring all his fortune to some trust fund, so that there would be nothing left under his name for her to inherit~ ? And if I remember correctly, Albert visited her regularly when she was a kid but had never lived with her and her mother~ and Delphine did not really know that Albert is her father until she turned 18....

 

[Prinsara]

Since
-she's not Boël's child
-and is not getting anything from him
-and this was all based on a groundless and silly insinuation she somehow still might
I would think that's the end of the topic?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

We had that discussion before. Regardless of the government's opinion, that interpretation has never been endorsed by a court of law [...]

I understand that you disagree with the government's legal opinion, and I apologize if I appeared to be rejecting your right to disagree (after all, I have stated my own disagreement with legal opinions).

However, most readers are probably not informed about the official opinion, and your previous post was not clear that you were stating your personal opinion, rather than the official one.

The fact remains that neither Prince Alexandre nor anyone else contested the government's ruling in court. For the time being, it is the controlling doctrine. In the future, it may or may not be overturned by a new government, a court ruling or act of parliament.

Probably, if he had petioned the courts to confirm his succession rights (before getting married), the courts would most likely have ruled in his favor as the government's opinion had no grounding in the constitution (government consent is not required for a marriage of the King, nor is marriage a political act that is subject to ministerial responsibility).

Please note that the government did not argue that "marriage is a political act that is subject to ministerial responsibility". (ETA: Corrected an error in my comment.)

The government's opinion was that without ministerial responsibility (i.e. government consent), a marriage of the king is not a political act and thus is incapable of producing political consequences, such as effects on the line of succession.

Again, you can read the opinion here:

https://www.senate.be/lexdocs/S0509/S05091665.pdf

and, in any case, no such ruling would be required as Albert's half sisters were already born with no succession rights under the constitution of Belgium and did not acquire succession rights when the constitution was amended.

The government's opinion would be relevant only to determine whether Prince Alexandre had succession rights or not.

The Constitution says "The provisions of Article 85 will for the first time be applicable to the progeny of H.R.H. Prince Albert".

The government's opinion is that "for the first time" means "only", but as you pointed out, one can disagree with the government.

Since
-she's not Boël's child
-and is not getting anything from him
-and this was all based on a groundless and silly insinuation she somehow still might
I would think that's the end of the topic?

I believe alterego was referring to Princess Delphine's own recent comment about what she could potentially have inherited had she remained Jacques Boël's child.

 

[Denville]

Indeed no, Boël could not disinherit her technically according to the law of Belgium, but he could easily do something, e.g. transferring all his fortune to some trust fund, so that there would be nothing left under his name for her to inherit~ ? And if I remember correctly, Albert visited her regularly when she was a kid but had never lived with her and her mother~ and Delphine did not really know that Albert is her father until she turned 18....

Of course he didn't live with her and her mother, he was a married man. but he was around a good deal when she was a child and acted as father figure to her... and then she learned he was her real father...
Anyway, as has been said, the fact is that she's NOT Boel's legal daughter now, she gave up her status as his daugher

 

[alterego]

I believe alterego was referring to Princess Delphine's own recent comment about what she could potentially have inherited had she remained Jacques Boël's child.

precisely!

 

[alterego]

Since
-she's not Boël's child
-and is not getting anything from him
-and this was all based on a groundless and silly insinuation she somehow still might
I would think that's the end of the topic?

quite agree~

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That's correct with the modern interpretation, but the document does say "legitime", doesn't it? Were Albert's younger siblings the first time "strictly legal" was considered?

There are descendants of Leopold I via the families Di Savoia, De Nassau, Napoléon, Windisch-Graetz, De Witt, etc. They never were legitime successors. They were legitime descendants though.

So the notion "descendants whom are successors" is not something new.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There are descendants of Leopold I via the families Di Savoia, De Nassau, Napoléon, Windisch-Graetz, De Witt, etc. They never were legitime successors. They were legitime descendants though.

So the notion "descendants whom are successors" is not something new.

I believe Prinsara's comment was only discussing the wording of the Constitution, which uses the words "legitimate descent" (Article 85).

Les pouvoirs constitutionnels du Roi sont héréditaires dans la descendance directe, naturelle et légitime de S.M. Léopold, Georges, Chrétien, Frédéric de Saxe-Cobourg, par ordre de primogéniture.

https://www.senate.be/doc/const_fr.html

The constitutional powers of the King are hereditary through the direct, natural and legitimate descent from H.M. Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, by order of primogeniture.

https://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/GrondwetUK.pdf​

But again, Delphine's lawyers stated that "she is a legitimate child like any other".

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Indeed no, Boël could not disinherit her technically according to the law of Belgium, but he could easily do something, e.g. transferring all his fortune to some trust fund, so that there would be nothing left under his name for her to inherit~ ? And if I remember correctly, Albert visited her regularly when she was a kid but had never lived with her and her mother~ and Delphine did not really know that Albert is her father until she turned 18....

Until she was 14. And their relationship remained warm and lovely, according Sybille de Selys Longchamps. All changed when the existence of Delphine as Albert's daughter was revealed in 1999.

The marriage of Albert and Paola was bad. Very bad. There were effectively two separate floors at the Château du Belvédère, so that the couple. Could live separately. For decades. With lot of effort the couple grew back together but apparently Delphine is an open nerve, a no go, for the uncompromising Queen Paola. It seems that things got out of hand because Albert, then the reigning King had to do everything to beware peace with the Queen. Imagine that a reigning King and Queen would divorce over this. It is there where all this went totally out of control. But - typically Coburg stubbornness- once Albert took this direction, he no longer could make a turn.

 

[JR76]

We don't even know if she's legally married.

But wouldn't the other lawyer argue that as she had no expectation of succeeding, she could not have been expected to seek or obtain the King's consent (especially if said King was Albert!)?

I wrote Belgian reporter Wim Dehandshutter on twitter to ask about Dèlphine and Christopher's relationship and according to him they have been in a relationship for 20 years but are not married even if she calls him her husband.

 

[Mbruno]

I wrote Belgian reporter Wim Dehandshutter on twitter to ask about Dèlphine and Christopher's relationship and according to him they have been in a relationship for 20 years but are not married even if she calls him her husband.

So that rules out the marriage consent loophole.