Titles of the Belgian Royal Family 1: Ending Aug.2023

[macedonsky]

Please read more carefully. The discussion was not about the title of prince(ss) of Belgium.

I know. You invented the title "prince/ss of Nowhere".

I think Delphine was born HRH and Princess of Belgium by Art.1 of 1891 Decree. I am sure in 1991 and in 2015 new decrees used old version as its basis.

I think that all this "mariage avec notre Fils bien-aimé" is only old time phrases.

They all are "most senior and noble and gracious etc", and princes/ses just because they have the blood de Sa Majesté Léopold, Georges, Chrétien, Frédéric de Saxe-Cobourg.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The children's surnames were changed from O'Hare to de Saxe-Cobourg? Are you sure about that?

See third alinea:


"On October 1st, 2020, the Brussels' Court of Appeal issued a final judgment in the long-term proceedings of Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg (formerly Boël) against her father King Albert II.

Delphine's first claim was that King Albert was her father. After a DNA test showed that there was no doubt about this, in this appeal King Albert no longer defended himself against this claim. This claim was therefore honoured, without question by the Court.

Delphine also claimed for herself and for her children that they should be allowed to use the paternal surname de Saxe-Cobourg. This name was already borne by the first King of the Belgians. This claim was also honoured.

Finally Delphine claimed for herself and for her children the right to bear the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness. She relied on article 2 of the Royal Decree of 12 November 2015. This article stipulates that the direct descendants of King Albert II may use this title. A special feature is that this right also belongs to descendants in the female lineage.

[...] "

 

[macedonsky]

Delphine also claimed for herself and for her children that they should be allowed to use the paternal surname de Saxe-Cobourg

But de Saxe-Cobourg is not paternal surname of Princess Josephine or Prince Oscar!

 

[Denville]

But de Saxe-Cobourg is not paternal surname of Princess Josephine or Prince Oscar!

A

are they in fact Prince and Princess? WIll the titles go on in perpetuity? IMO there's no problem with them using the Surname Saxe Coburg if their parents want them to do so...

 

[Prinsara]

They're allowed to. We don't know that they will.

For all we know, Josephine and Oscar could be "de Saxe-Cobourg O'Hare".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I know. You invented the title "prince/ss of Nowhere".

Clearly, you do not.

Those who have read the discussion will have seen that your accusation is incorrect.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But de Saxe-Cobourg is not paternal surname of Princess Josephine or Prince Oscar!

De Saxe-Cobourg is the paternal surname of Delphine. And by officially recognizing she is now Delphine Michèle Anne Marie Ghislaine de Saxe-Cobourg, she obtained the right to transfer that surname to her children Joséphine and Oscar.

The parents have the freedom to transfer their name to their children. However, tradition is strong: 90% still opts for the paternal surname. 4% opts for the maternal surname. 6% opts for a combination of the two surnames.

Delphine could have opted for o'Hare de Saxe-Cobourg or De Saxe-Cobourg o'Hare (see De Roumanie Medforth Mills or Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg).

 

[macedonsky]

she obtained the right to transfer that surname to her children Joséphine and Oscar.

Exactly. But in registrary office not via court.

AFAIK applicant was Delphine, she won her surname and the court decision can not affect another persons and their surnames.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

She was his legal daughter and she has her titles since her birth. Legally the court just recognize this.

No. Delphine was the legal daughter of Jacques Boël and Sybille de Selys Longchamps. She was born in their marriage. And it was Jacques Boël whom registered her at the town hall as his daughter.

That is why Delphine had to start a separate procedure first to end the paternity of Jacques Boël.

Then she was without any father for a period.

Then the procedure against King Albert resulted in the establishment of his paternity over Delphine.

 

[wartenberg7]

She was recognized as the legal daughter of Albert II and as his legal daughter she was recognized as the person who have the title of Princess of Belgium and HRH because royal decrees have no exception for borned out of wedlock.

not a wise decision, if you ask me...

 

[macedonsky]

To add to my reply: I explained the original meaning of the decrees

Yes, I read all messages in this thread.

It does not apply to non-princes and non-princesses who are children or grandchildren of Albert II.

I'm sorry, but it is not the original meaning, it is your interpretation I disagree with.

I have not seen anything in Delphine's or her lawyers' statements to suggest that the ruling is retroactive to her birth.

We are not experts in Belgian law but I think that Her Royal Highness was born as daughter of heк present father

And as daughter she was HRH by virtue of 1891 decree. Even not being princess of Butan or princess of New York.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don´t understand why she is now a royal Princess only by being reckognized as the biologicial daughter of King Albert...?!
In history many Kings fathered "illegitimate" children, but of course, because of being born outside a legal marriage, none became royal - unless they were given a title by the monarch!
I´m pretty surprised and I´m not sure what to think about it.

Because the Belgian laws and Decrees concerning the royal family are quitw sloppy. In other countries there is a difference between the succession (Constitution), the surnames (Civic Code), titles (Nobility Act) or the membership of the Royal House and the titles which ho with that.

In Belgium it wrecks that there is no differentiation into a royal family and a Royal House.

 

[wartenberg7]

The former lawyer and expert in Nobility, jonkheer Adolph Robert Phoenix Boddaert LL.M. summarized on the website of Adel in Nederland:

"Finally Delphine claimed for herself and for her children the right to bear the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness. She relied on article 2 of the Royal Decree of 12 November 2015. This article stipulates that the direct descendants of King Albert II may use this title. A special feature is that this right also belongs to descendants in the female lineage.

The King argued against this claim that this article would only apply to his descendants, who already had this title when the Royal Decree of 2015 came into effect, and to the descendants who were born afterwards. It would therefore not apply to persons who were already alive at that time, but only obtained the status of descendant afterwards.

The Court rejected this defense, partly because such an interpretation of the Royal Decree would be contrary to the principle of equality, described in articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution (comparable to article 1 of the Netherlands' Constitution). The Court therefore ruled that Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg and her children may use the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness.

Bergen, October 5, 2020

Jonkheer Dolph Boddaert LL.M."

https://www.adelinnederland.nl/delphine-de-nieuwe-prinses-van-belgie/

Seems to me like an act of pure vengance, because she was given such a hard time after a period of years of struggle!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Because the Belgian laws and Decrees concerning the royal family are quitw sloppy. In other countries there is a difference between the succession (Constitution), the surnames (Civic Code), titles (Nobility Act) or the membership of the Royal House and the titles which ho with that.

In Belgium it wrecks that there is no differentiation into a royal family and a Royal House.

In Belgium there is a legal differentiation between surnames (Civic Code) and titles (nobiliary law), and of course succession (Constitution).

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-18.html#post2324591

I thought Delphine did not marry because she wanted her children to carry her surname which is now finally the royal one?

No, under Belgian law at that time, her children would have inherited their father's surname regardless of whether their parents were married.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...ss-delphine-of-belgium-47954-post2346577.html

Yes, I read all messages in this thread.

I provided the links for the benefit of others, but I am glad to hear that.

I'm sorry, but it is not the original meaning, it is your interpretation I disagree with.

It is my current understanding of the original meaning, on the basis of the historical records.

I remain always open to the possibility that my interpretation is wrong. As a matter of fact, I have already changed my interpretation before: I once interpreted the meaning of the decrees in the same manner that you appear to advocate, as you can see here. After educating myself on the background, however, it became apparent to me that I was mistaken.

For the present, I have not read another interpretation which is capable of explaining why, for example, members of the royal family were styled Princes and Princesses before the decrees, or why the 1891 report stated what it did. (I have explained these issues in previous posts: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-delphine-of-belgium-47954-6.html#post2346021 and https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-delphine-of-belgium-47954-4.html#post2345903.)

But if there is an alternative interpretation which can sufficiently explain those historical facts, I would be interested in hearing it.

We are not experts in Belgian law but I think that Her Royal Highness was born as daughter of heк present father

And as daughter she was HRH by virtue of 1891 decree. Even not being princess of Butan or princess of New York.

Delphine's lawyers, at least, did not believe the ruling could be retroactive. As Duc_et_Pair mentioned they sued to end the paternity of Jacques Boël going forward, and argued that Delphine was HRH by virtue of the decree of 2015, not 1891.

 

[Addapalla]

(see De Roumanie Medforth Mills)

de Roumanie in Nicholas and Karina's case is one of their middle names. The siblings' legal surname in the UK: Medforth-Mills.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

de Roumanie in Nicholas and Karina's case is one of their middle names. The siblings' legal surname in the UK: Medforth-Mills.

By my understanding they bear the surname De Roumanie Medforth-Mills and prefer to be known as De Roumanie. . Nicholas is a Swiss-born son from British and Romanian parents, residing in Romania. No idea which passport he uses and how his surname is in it.

 

[Somebody]

Interesting idea! And thank you for the reply.

But can that interpretation resolve the inconsistency? If Article 2 is interpreted as stating that "each and every child and grandchild of Albert II is a prince(ss) of Belgium and THEREFORE they are also a prince or princess", then how could the same wording in Article 4 not be interpreted as "each and every descendant of Leopold I carries the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right and THEREFORE they are also a prince or princess"?

The persistent problem is that the wording "the Princes and the Princesses ... born in direct descendance" is identical.

I will repost the translation for convenience:

Article 2. 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.

[...]

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.​

But the difference is in the comma...

So, yes, it could be interpreted the same way: those that have other titles and because of those titles are princes and princesses descending from Leopold only carry those titles and do not carry the title prince(ss) of Belgium.

Had it been worded:
The Princes and Princesses, every descendant in male or female line, born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg,[/b] who are not covered by Articles 1 to 3, ...

I would agree that the wording was similar and the interpretation, therefore, would also be similar: i.e. each and every descendant is a prince or princess. However, it is not.

It remains sloppy wording which was not helpful to begin with.

ETA: And limiting the titular dignity of Prince/ss would have required stripping it from several Belgian noble families (Ligne, Arenberg, etc.) which already hold it.

This Royal Decree was not about limiting the title of prince(ss) but about indicating who would and would not be prince(ss) of Belgium, so I am not sure how this royal decree could impact them.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In Belgium there is a legal differentiation between surnames (Civic Code) and titles (nobiliary law), and of course succession (Constitution).

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-18.html#post2324591

[.....]

There is no Nobility Act in Belgium. There is no Royal House Act in Belgium.

The right of the King of the Belgians to confer titles of nobility is fixed by art. 113 of the Constitution which states that "The King has the right to confer titles of nobility, without ever being able to attach any privilege to them".

Apart from this meagre article, nothing has been done to settle the Nobility, no law defines the scope of the constitutional provisions, everything has remained vague. We cannot speak of nobiliary "legislation" in Belgium, let alone about a Nobility Act.

Like the lack of a Nobility Act, also the lack of a Royal House Act or even the lack of a Financial Statute shows Belgium never had a very clear doctrine in matters of royalty and nobility, that there everything is about nuance and discretion, where there are no clear rules, where there are only specific cases.

The only attempt of a codification was a draft of a hierarchy of noble titles, which can be found in a report dated 12 December 1838 and which would have been submitted to King Leopold I. This report, which is neither a law nor a Royal Decree, has no binding force in the Belgian legal order, nor was it ever officially published in the Belgian State Gazette. The hierarchy in this attempt was also rejected for the title of Duke which is higher than that of Prince in different cases.

In essence we can say, titles of royalty and nobility are regulated by the King, as long as there is a ministerial contraseign under a Royal Decree. Meaning there is not always a consistent policy here. And changing winds depending on any scrutiny, or total lack of scrutiny, by an independent body.

In the Netherlands the Hoge Raad van Adel is a so called High College of State, a par with the Council of State, with the two Chambers of the States-General, with the Auditory Chamber and the Office of the National Ombudsman. This positioning, not subjected to any department, with an independent statute, gives these High Colleges a decisive position.

With the establishment of the Kingdom of Belgium, this Hoge Raad van Adel was discontinued in the former Southern Netherlands (the - now Belgian-- families on the Adelslijst before 1839 still are part of the Netherlands' Nobility). In Belgium a Bureau Protocol of the Department of Foreign Affairs advises the Minister of Foreign Affairs in matters of Nobility. It is clear that this positioning under Foreign Affairs and as just one of the many duties of the Bureau Protocol, does not help very much to the codification of and expertise about nobility, heraldry and titles. For an example, in Belgium even the codification of heraldic symbols or the use of arms is just a collection of existing rules from here and there and everywhere.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks for elaborating. Now I understand what you mean.

But the difference is in the comma...

Sorry, I think I am missing this difference between Articles 2 and 4. Can you elaborate?

Had it been worded:
The Princes and Princesses, every descendant in male or female line, born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, who are not covered by Articles 1 to 3, ...

I would agree that the wording was similar and the interpretation, therefore, would also be similar: i.e. each and every descendant is a prince or princess. However, it is not.

But Article 2 does not say "every descendant in male or female line", or even "every child or grandchild in male or female line", so there is no difference there.

This Royal Decree was not about limiting the title of prince(ss) but about indicating who would and would not be prince(ss) of Belgium, so I am not sure how this royal decree could impact them.

That was exactly my point: The Royal Decree was not (intended to be) about limiting the title of prince(ss) but about indicating who would and would not be prince(ss) of Belgium. (So, the Royal Decree did not affect Anna Astrid's entitlement to be a princess, only her entitlement to be a princess of Belgium.)

 

[Skippy]

What a sloppy (phrasing of) law can cause.... Does anyone still wish to be a Prince(ss)?

 

[Somebody]

Thanks for elaborating. Now I understand what you mean.

Sorry, I think I am missing this difference between Articles 2 and 4. Can you elaborate?

But Article 2 does not say "every descendant in male or female line", or even "every child or grandchild in male or female line", so there is no difference there.

I've tried several times (see my previous references to subordinate phrases), not sure that I will succeed this time but will try again

You re right that it says 'children and grandchildren', however, the point was that article 2 DOES specify something, while article 4 does NOT specify anything.

Article 2 says 'children and grandchildren COMMA', there is no such specification in article 4 (it goes straight to descendants), so the specification that is included in article 2 which apparently is interpreted to clarify who they are talking about is missing in article 4. There is only one comma in article 4, while there are two in article 2 - which means the specification that is included in article 2 is NOT included in article 4. In my example I added a comparable specification to show how both articles could be similar in wording; however, because in reality there is no such specification in article 4 the only conclusion can be (imho) that the formulation is not exactly the same as article 2 but has a slightly but important different sentence structure.

However, I'm happy to reword:
Article 2. 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.

would be comparable to

Article 4. The Princes and Princesses, children and grandchildren, 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.

but not to a phrase that does not include such additional phrase followed by a comma.

(However, the above wouldn't work because articles 1 to 3 cannot apply to any of them as none of his children or grandchildren are alive, that's why I used a different example that would be theoretically possible)

So, if we throw out all ballast from article 4 it reads:
The Princes and Princesses carry following their forename and their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right.

However, that would be a little hard to interpret, so they added to additional clauses to specify who they were talking about - and one more to recognize that not every prince or princess might have a family name.
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.

It does specifically NOT read: the princes and princesses born in direct descendance... carry (as that comma after princes and princesses in this sentence structure indicates that that full phrase should be removed to simplify the sentence).

Hope this helps (and not further confuses )

That was exactly my point: The Royal Decree was not (intended to be) about limiting the title of prince(ss) but about indicating who would and would not be prince(ss) of Belgium. (So, the Royal Decree did not affect Anna Astrid's entitlement to be a princess, only her entitlement to be a princess of Belgium.)

That's something we've agreed on from the start ?

The fact that this article is interpreted to indicate that Delphine and her children as children and grandchildren of Albert are princesses and prince of Belgium (which falls within the intention of the royal decree: to indicate who is a prince(ss) of Belgium) MAKES them prince and princess; not the other way around. This is not applicable to article 4 which doesn't confer the title of prince(ss) of Belgium (or any other title) on anyone.

 

[macedonsky]

For the present, I have not read another interpretation which is capable of explaining why, for example, members of the royal family were styled Princes and Princesses before the decrees, or why the 1891 report stated what it did.

It can be even more intersesting to nete that before 1891 they were not only Princes and Princesses but alsa had style of HRH. And if one can say they were princes/ses of SCG, nobody can say they were SCG HRH because SCG were merely Highnesses.

I suppose it was just custom that children of king are princes/ses and HRH. I have read famous discussion in The Times in 1957 concerning princely title of the Duke of Edinburgh. He was named Prince Philip every time in media but was not prince. As result of discussion he was finally granted the title he really used for decade.

Look at page of Almanac de Gotha 1886. It was before 1891 decree but they all were princes/ses and Alt.Roy. Please note that this information was approved by the court. Thus in 1891 it was just transferred from custom into law.

And 1890:

 

[Addapalla]

By my understanding they bear the surname De Roumanie Medforth-Mills and prefer to be known as De Roumanie. . Nicholas is a Swiss-born son from British and Romanian parents, residing in Romania. No idea which passport he uses and how his surname is in it.

No, their legal surnames at birth did not include de Roumanie. How they may have used or represented the name since is a different matter. Nicholas's sister in particular is little interested and very low-key about her royal background. Her friends know her as Karina Medforth-Mills. Sorry, this is quite tangential to the topic here, but I was responding to a questionable comparison made above concerning double royal surnames.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If Princess Elisabeth marries a foreign Prince, does he automatically become HRH Prince of Belgium?

If Princess Elisabeth marries a foreign Prince, will he still not be considered a Prince because he was born a Prince?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I've tried several times (see my previous references to subordinate phrases), not sure that I will succeed this time but will try again

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I still am not sure I have understood your arguments, but your patience is much appreciated.

The fact that this article is interpreted to indicate that Delphine and her children as children and grandchildren of Albert are princesses and prince of Belgium [...]

Indeed, the court interpreted it in that manner. But I was not questioning the court's interpretation. I was questioning the interpretation of "royal experts" on social media who claimed that it was Delphine's right to become a princess of Belgium but also claimed that Delphine and Astrid had no right to pass titles on to their children/grandchildren.

Article 2 says 'children and grandchildren COMMA', there is no such specification in article 4 (it goes straight to descendants) [...] the formulation is not exactly the same as article 2 but has a slightly but important different sentence structure.

Yes, because Article 4 (no matter which interpretation one accepts) is not restricted by degree of kinship to children and grandchildren. Thus, there is no need for a clause in commas to specify the degree limitation.

I'm afraid I still do not see how the lack of a degree of kinship clause relates to the interpretation of whether or not Article 2/Article 4 applies the designation of "Prince or Princess" to every member of the class of descendants that is mentioned in that article (children and grandchildren of Albert II in Article 2; descendants of Leopold I in Article 4).

Hopefully, my point will be clearer if I adopt your excellent idea of color-coding to indicate the comparable parts of Article 2 and Article 4.

Article 2. 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.

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.


The formulations in red are identical in Article 2 and Article 4.

The formulation in blue specifies a class of descendants.
Article 2: children and grandchildren of Albert II
Article 4: descendants of Leopold I who are not already covered by the preceding articles

The formulation in purple specifies what is to be "carried".
Article 2: ancestral titles, Prince/ss of Belgium, HRH, (optionally) family name, (optionally) dynastic title
Article 4: ancestral titles, (optionally) family name
​

If I understand your earlier explanations: The social media "experts" interpreted Article 2 by applying the formulation in purple to every member of the class in blue. According to this interpretation, Article 2 would confer HRH Prince/ss of Belgium and ancestral titles (the purple) on every child or grandchild of Albert II (the blue).

Then, if we are to interpret Article 4 consistently with that interpretation of Article 2, meaning by applying the formulation in purple to every member of the class in blue: Article 4 would be interpreted as conferring ancestral titles (the purple) on every descendant of Leopold I not already covered by other rules (the blue).

That is why the "experts"' interpretation of Articles 2 and 4 (specifically, that Delphine is entitled to be a princess but Delphine's children and Astrid's (grand)children are not) strikes me as inconsistent.

 

[Mbruno]

If Princess Elisabeth marries a foreign Prince, does he automatically become HRH Prince of Belgium?

No, he has to be created a Prince of Belgium in his own right by a separate royal decree. Since 1991, that requirement also applies to wives of Princes of Belgium.


Mathilde, Claire and Lorenz are all Princesses/Prince of Belgium in their own right.

The fact that this article is interpreted to indicate that Delphine and her children as children and grandchildren of Albert are princesses and prince of Belgium (which falls within the intention of the royal decree: to indicate who is a prince(ss) of Belgium) MAKES them prince and princess; not the other way around. This is not applicable to article 4 which doesn't confer the title of prince(ss) of Belgium (or any other title) on anyone.

I think the intention of Arts. 1 and 2 in King Philippe's royal decree was pretty clear and the court interpreted it correctly: all children and grandchildren of King Albert II are to be Princes/Princesses of Belgium with the style of HRH. Delphine's or Astrid's grandchildren on the other hand are/will not be either HRHs or Princes/Princesses of Belgium as they are/will not be born as children or grandchildren of a king, or children or grandchildren of a Crown Prince.



The confusing part to me is whether Art.4 implies that all descendants of Leopold I are entitled to the prefix Prince/Princess even though they are neither HRHs nor Princes/Princesses of Belgium.



As of today, there are descendants of Leopold I who are not in the line of succession to the throne and do not use the prefix Prince/Princess, e.g. the descendants of Princess Marie-Esméralda. King Baudouin's 1991 decree included an article with similar wording to Art.4 in the new decree, but with an important difference that it explicitly applied only to descendants of Leopold I in male line. Has the titulaire of Princess Esméralda's children, or of her children's descendants born after the new decree came into force changed and can they now call themselves Prince/Princess? Maybe they should ask the courts to clarify that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, he has to be created a Prince of Belgium in his own right by a separate royal decree. Since 1991, that requirement also applies to wives of Princes of Belgium.

Mathilde, Claire and Lorenz are all Princesses/Prince of Belgium in their own right.

However, even in cases where a wife of a Prince of Belgium has not legally been created a Princess of Belgium, the Palace refers to her as a princess. At times the Palace uses the formulation "Princess Alexandre/Amedeo of Belgium" for such wives, and at other times "Princess Léa/Elisabetta" without the territorial designation.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/non-british-styles-and-titles-17155-40.html#post2340994

There is no comparable tradition of courtesy titles for husbands. Prior to his legal creation as Prince of Belgium, Princess Astrid's husband was referred to by the Palace as "Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este".

I hope - but do not expect - that will change when the next generation of princesses marries.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the intention of Arts. 1 and 2 in King Philippe's royal decree was pretty clear and the court interpreted it correctly: all children and grandchildren of King Albert II are to be Princes/Princesses of Belgium with the style of HRH. [...]

The confusing part to me is whether Art.4 implies that all descendants of Leopold I are entitled to the prefix Prince/Princess even though they are neither HRHs nor Princes/Princesses of Belgium.

As I discussed in detail in the post preceding yours, and in this earlier post, I believe that is the only interpretation of Article 4 which is consistent with the interpretation of Article 2 to mean "all children and grandchildren of King Albert II are to be Princes/Princesses of Belgium with the style of HRH".

Do you see another possible (consistent) interpretation?

I am fairly sure that this interpretation of Articles 2 and 4 was not the intention of King Philippe, but that is a different issue.

King Baudouin's 1991 decree included an article with similar wording to Art.4 in the new decree, but with an important difference that it explicitly applied only to descendants of Leopold I in male line.

Could you cite the article? I do not see it.

 

[Mbruno]

Could you cite the article? I do not see it.

Sorry, it was actually the decree of 14/3/1891, where it says:

"Art. 1er. 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.
Les princesses unies par mariage aux princes de notre maison royale seront qualifiées de la même manière à la suite des noms et titres qui leur sont propres.

That is to be read in conjunction with Art.3 of the 2015 decree, which kept the titles of Prince/Princess of Belgium and, presumably, of Duke/Duchess of Saxe for that same class of people (assuming they are still deemed entitled to the latter by virtue of their family origin).

Art. 3. Les Princes et les Princesses qui portent le titre de Prince ou de Princesse de Belgique en vertu de l'arrêté royal du 14 mars 1891 qualifiant Princes et Princesses de Belgiqueles Princes et Princesses issus de la descendance masculine et directe de feu Sa Majesté Léopold Ier gardent ce titre à la suite de leur prénom et, pour autant qu'ils le portent, de leur nom de famille et avant les autres titres qui leur reviennent de droit par leur ascendance. Leur prénom est précédé par le prédicat Son Altesse Royale.

Art.1 of the 1991 decree was the first reference to descendants in female line as Prince/Princess, but it applied only to Prince Albert's descendants. Art.4 of the 2015 decree referred in turn to all descendants of Leopold I, including descendants in female line who do not descend from Albert II, as Prince/Princess, which is the confusing part.

Note that the royal decree of 1891, in conjuction with Art.3 of the royal decree of 2015, also guarantees that Queen Paola for example retains the title of Princess of Belgium, but the same doesn't apply to any woman married to a Prince of Belgium after 1991.

 

[Somebody]

If Princess Elisabeth marries a foreign Prince, will he still not be considered a Prince because he was born a Prince?

I expect him to be titled as prince but probably not with the style (at least that is what happened to Lorenz if I am not mistaken; his HIIH wasn't recognized but him being an Archduke was); but he won't automatically be a prince of Belgium - but will most likely be made a prince of Belgium in his own right.