You may be right, and I'm simply requiring the royal court to have more foresight than anyone was capable of five years ago. Perhaps no one was willing to bring up the matter of "King Albert has another child [who could fall under this]" or see the prophylactic use in sticking "legitimate" in the wording.
[...]
"Nobody being able to foresee Delphine's multiple court victories" is probably the right answer.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the court's reasoning is unknown for the moment. They may not have looked to the decree at all.
But it would be quite nice to hear from persons fluent in French, the original language of the royal decrees, because if the contentious part of the decree is translated into English, a language bearing many similarities to French, the original reading strikes me as a bit more straightforward.
The contentious words in Article 2 are as follows.
les Princes et les Princesses, enfants et petits-enfants, issus de la descendance directe de Sa Majesté le Roi Albert II portent le titre de Prince ou de Princesse de Belgique
Translated literally into English:
the Princes and the Princesses, children and grandchildren, in direct descent from His Majesty King Albert II carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium
To illustrate my meaning, replace these terms:
Replace "the Princes and the Princesses" with "Philippe and Astrid".
Replace "children and grandchildren" with "children".
Replace "carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium" with "receive €1".
The wording that results ought to be
Philippe and Astrid, children in direct descent from His Majesty King Albert II receive €1
Following from the earlier discussions here, two possible interpretations suggested by that wording could be
- All of Albert's children qualify to be Philippe and Astrid (and to receive €1). Laurent and Delphine receive the new names Philippe and Astrid, and they become €1 wealthier.
- The decree is meant to apply only to children of Albert who are already named Philippe or Astrid. Laurent and Delphine keep the same names but miss out on the €1.
The first one strikes me as more reasonable. But again, I realize it may sound different in French than in the translation, and I would like to hear from various fluent speakers of French.
That they both have the same father, who has badly failed them both, in individual ways. I thought that rather than resenting Delphine, it was possible Philippe might even feel a measure of solidarity with her.
Not so much as to give her a theoretical apanage or official housing and go against policy, but enough to let that loophole go through — as a strike against Albert, and all that hurt he's caused, and in Philippe's case, the way Albert's even making his job as sovereign more difficult.
It was just speculation, though.
Thank you for the clarification.
I see the logic of your speculation.
In this case, though, their father seems to have failed Astrid and Laurent in largely the same manner as he failed Philippe, and that solidarity did not prevent Philippe from proactively diminishing the privileges of his sister and brother and their families, sometimes in spite of their protests.
100% agree.
This is all on Albert's (and probably Paola's) head, they should not get involved whatsoever.
I don't think Queen Paola can be held responsible for the choices of her (unfaithful) spouse.