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

[Prinsara]

Eh no as all you have to do is look at the Belgian Royal site ,see below
Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant

https://www.monarchie.be/en/royal-family/princess-elisabeth-duchess-of-brabant

Often royals are not always referred to by their official royal titles

The Prince of Wales is more often referred to as simply Prince Charles
The Princess Royal is more often referred to as simply Princess Anne and so on!

But the reputable British media, the Court, and the organizations on engagements all call Charles "the Prince of Wales", Anne "the Princess Royal", William "the Duke of Cambridge", and so forth.

"Duchess of Brabant" is an informational title, perhaps, but if it isn't used on official engagements and she's not referred to that way in Belgium (nor was her father), it's not the same thing at all.

 

[Somebody]

But the reputable British media, the Court, and the organizations on engagements all call Charles "the Prince of Wales", Anne "the Princess Royal", William "the Duke of Cambridge", and so forth.

"Duchess of Brabant" is an informational title, perhaps, but if it isn't used on official engagements and she's not referred to that way in Belgium (nor was her father), it's not the same thing at all.

I agree it's a different thing/discussion.

Nonetheless, I am still a bit confused about the point you are trying to make - as I am not clear what the problem is you are trying to solve.
Do you want people to no longer refer to her as Duchess of Brabant at all? Imho that would go against what the Belgian royal house does, so, that doesn't seem to be the way to go.
OR Do you want people to no longer to EXCLUSIVELY refer to her as the Duchess of Brabant (HRH The Duchess of Brabant). That would indeed be a great recommendation (which should also be forwarded to the Norwegian court) as that would be consistent with the Belgian court's practice.

 

[Prinsara]

I agree it's a different thing/discussion.

Nonetheless, I am still a bit confused about the point you are trying to make - as I am not clear what the problem is you are trying to solve.
Do you want people to no longer refer to her as Duchess of Brabant at all? Imho that would go against what the Belgian royal house does, so, that doesn't seem to be the way to go.
OR Do you want people to no longer to EXCLUSIVELY refer to her as the Duchess of Brabant (HRH The Duchess of Brabant). That would indeed be a great recommendation (which should also be forwarded to the Norwegian court) as that would be consistent with the Belgian court's practice.

The latter. The title of the thread for her fashion and style on this board is "The Duchess of Brabant", with no mention of "Princess Elisabeth" at all. I think things here should be consistent with real-life usage, for clarity's sake. Much like William's wife is referred to as the duchess and not as the princess, it ought to be the other way around for Elisabeth.

I am not going to write Oslo but anyone else can feel free. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Norwegian royal court correctly referred to Elisabeth in the guestlist for the recent gala dinner at Oslo Palace as

Her Royal Highness Princess Elisabeth - Duchess of Brabant​

and (also correctly) in the caption for the group photograph of heirs as

HRH Princess Elisabeth of Belgium​

The latter. The title of the thread for her fashion and style on this board is "The Duchess of Brabant", with no mention of "Princess Elisabeth" at all. I think things here should be consistent with real-life usage, for clarity's sake. Much like William's wife is referred to as the duchess and not as the princess, it ought to be the other way around for Elisabeth.

That seems like a good suggestion. ?

 

[Mbruno]

I agree it's a different thing/discussion.

Nonetheless, I am still a bit confused about the point you are trying to make - as I am not clear what the problem is you are trying to solve.
Do you want people to no longer refer to her as Duchess of Brabant at all? Imho that would go against what the Belgian royal house does, so, that doesn't seem to be the way to go.
OR Do you want people to no longer to EXCLUSIVELY refer to her as the Duchess of Brabant (HRH The Duchess of Brabant). That would indeed be a great recommendation (which should also be forwarded to the Norwegian court) as that would be consistent with the Belgian court's practice.

As I said, "Duke/Duchess of Brabant" is treated in Belgium as a dynastic title like "King of the Belgians", which is why both appear in official documents between the given names and the title of "Prince/Princess of Belgium". "King/Queen" or "Prince/Princess" on the other hand are titular dignities which are prefixed to the given names and are preceded by the respective styles of Majesty or Royal Highness. See for example Prince Philippe's marriage certificate reproduced from the Heraldica site:

« Acte de mariage
N° 708 L'an mil neuf cent nonante-neuf, le quatre décembre, à dix heures, devant Nous, Messire François-Xavier Chevalier de Donnea, Ministre d'Etat, Membre de la Chambre des Représentants, Bourgmestre de la Ville de Bruxelles, Officier de l'Etat Civil, Grand Officier de l'Ordre de Léopold, assisté de Marceline Van Baerlem, Echevine de la Ville de Bruxelles, comparaissent à l'Hôtel de Ville :
Son Altesse Royale le Prince Philippe Léopold Louis Marie, Duc de Brabant, Prince de Belgique, Sénateur, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre de Léopold, titulaire de diverses distinctions honorifiques étrangères, né à Bruxelles, deuxième district, le quinze avril mil neuf cent soixante, domicilié à Bruxelles, rue Brederode 16, fils majeur de Sa Majesté le Roi Albert II Félix Humbert Théodore Christian Eugène Marie, Roi des Belges, Prince de Belgique, Grand Maître de l'Ordre de Léopold, titulaire de diverses distinctions honorifiques étrangères, et de son épouse Sa Majesté la Reine Paola Margherita Maria-Antonia Consiglia des Princes Ruffo di Calabria, Princesse de Belgique, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre de Léopold, domiciliés à Bruxelles, d'une part[...]>>

https://heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalbelge.htm#Belgique

See also the rules for the proper order of given names, dynastic titles, and "Prince/Princess of Belgium" in the Royal Decree of 2015:

Article 1er. Dans les actes publics et privés qui les concernent, les Princes et les Princesses, enfants et petits-enfants, issus de la descendance directe du Roi ainsi que les Princes et les Princesses, enfants et petits-enfants, issus de la descendance directe du Prince héritier ou de la Princesse héritière portent le titre de Prince ou de Princesse de Belgique à la suite de leur prénom et, pour autant qu'ils les portent, de leur nom de famille et de leur titre dynastique et avant les autres titres qui leur reviennent de droit par leur ascendance. Leur prénom est précédé par le prédicat Son Altesse Royale.
[...]

https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/arrete-royal-du-12-juillet-2019_n2019030777.html

It follows then that, in my opinion, calling Elisabeth "Princess Elisabeth" or "the Duchess of Brabant" is equivalent to calling her father "King Philippe" or "the King of the Belgians". Technically, they are "Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant" and "King Philippe, King of the Belgians".

I guess we are just used, especially in the English-speaking media, to the British custom of referring to the royals by their titles, but Prince William or Prince Charles are also technically in official documents "HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge" or "HRH Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales", with "HRH Prince" prefixed to their given names under the Letters Patent of 1917 and "Duke of Cambridge" and "Prince of Wales" separate titles bestowed on them by separate LPs.

 

[Somebody]

The Norwegian royal court correctly referred to Elisabeth in the guestlist for the recent gala dinner at Oslo Palace as

Her Royal Highness Princess Elisabeth - Duchess of Brabant​

and (also correctly) in the caption for the group photograph of heirs as

HRH Princess Elisabeth of Belgium​

That seems like a good suggestion. ?

The English version I read somewhere only included 'Duchess of Brabant' on the guestlist. The Norwegian version indeed used the combination for all princes and princess with an additional ducal title, irrespective of the use in their home country.

The English caption for the pictures indeed used the correct title for Elisabeth but the incorrect title for Amalia...

 

[Somebody]

As I said, "Duke/Duchess of Brabant" is treated in Belgium as a dynastic title like "King of the Belgians", which is why both appear in official documents between the given names and the title of "Prince/Princess of Belgium".

It makes you wonder why they use 'Elisabeth, Princess of Belgium, Duchess of Brabant' to start her biography... I guess, they aren't as consistent themselves when trying to combine all her titles.

 

[Mbruno]

It makes you wonder why they use 'Elisabeth, Princess of Belgium, Duchess of Brabant' to start her biography... I guess, they aren't as consistent themselves when trying to combine all her titles.

See my edited post above where I quote the legal instrument that says it should be "Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium" instead. I guess it is a mistake. Her father's marriage certificate, on the other hand, is correct.

EDIT: I quoted the decree in French because it is easier for me to read it in that language, but I guess you might prefer to read it in Dutch since it is your native language. The link is

https://etaamb.openjustice.be/nl/koninklijk-besluit-van-12-november-2015_n2015021075

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It follows then that, in my opinion, calling Elisabeth "Princess Elisabeth" or "the Duchess of Brabant" is equivalent to calling her father "King Philippe" or "the King of the Belgians".

In the official court agenda on monarchie.be, Philippe is called "His Majesty the King", but Elisabeth is called "Her Royal Highness Princess Elisabeth". See my post above quoting and linking to the Court Agenda entries for Elisabeth's two recent engagements.

The English version I read somewhere

The Norwegian royal court never released an English version of the guestlist (you can see that by comparing the press releases on royalcourt.no and kongehuset.no).

If you are referring to post #245 on page 13 of the birthday thread on this forum, Duc_et_Pair was writing his own list of names, not quoting or translating from the royal court.

 

[Somebody]

The Norwegian royal court never released an English version of the guestlist (you can see that by comparing the press releases on royalcourt.no and kongehuset.no).

If you are referring to post #245 on page 13 of the birthday thread on this forum, Duc_et_Pair was writing his own list of names, not quoting the royal court.

Thanks, I looked it up on the website and indeed couldn't find an English version, so figured someone must have made a translation themselves. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Mbruno]

In the official court agenda on monarchie.be, Philippe is called "His Majesty the King", but Elisabeth is called "Her Royal Highness Princess Elisabeth". See my post above quoting and linking to the Court Agenda entries for Elisabeth's two recent engagements.

Yes, inside Belgium, he is called "His Majesty The King" in daily usage, which is the norm everywhere, e.g. so are the Kings of the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, etc. in their respective countries. That makes sense, since each country has only one King who is "The King" , as in the Head of State.

Still, in official documents, the current King is, as in Prince Philippe's marriage certificate, "S.M. le Roi Albert II [...], Roi des Belges" and the preambles to royal decrees read "Philippe, Roi des Belges" in the same way as the preambles to Spanish royal decrees say "Felipe VI, Rey de España".

King Felipe VI himself might be "S.M. el Rey" in daiiy usage, but officially he is "S.M. Don Felipe VI Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos de Borbón y Grecia, Rey de España". When he married Letizia Ortiz, the Archbishop called him "Don Felipe de Borbón y Grecia, Príncipe de Asturias, Príncipe de Gerona, Príncipe de Viana, Duque de Montblanc, Conde de Cervera, Señor de Balaguer".

It seems to me that the normal structure of long royal titles in Europe is:

[Style (e.g. HRH)] + [Titular Prefix (e.g. Prince), if used in the long title (may be omitted)] + [Given Names] + [Family Name (normally not used, except in Spain)] + [Dynastic Titles] and/or [Titles of Nobility/Peerages]+ [Orders of Knighthood (when applicable)]

In daily usage, that can be reduced to HRH + [Main Title] as in the British custom, or simply HRH + [Prefix] + [ Forename].

EDIT: Note that, in the Belgian documents, Albert's and Philippe's citations did not include family names, but both their spouses (Paola and Mathilde) were/are cited by their maiden surnames, which I find interesting. A distinction seems to be made then between royals by birth and royals by marriage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

See my edited post above where I quote the legal instrument that says it should be "Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium" instead. I guess it is a mistake. Her father's marriage certificate, on the other hand, is correct.

I wouldn't necessarily assume it to be a mistake. As the biography page is not a legal document, it is not mandatory for it to obey the rules for the order of titles in legal acts.

Note that the royal decrees stipulating these rules, most recently Article 1 of the November 12, 2015 decree (note: quoted in one of Mbruno's posts above) specify that they apply to "public and private acts". My understanding is that "acts" refers to legal documents.

It makes you wonder why they use 'Elisabeth, Princess of Belgium, Duchess of Brabant' to start her biography

I imagine it is because the long form which is correct for legal documents (refer to Mbruno's links) is "HRH Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium". As the sentence you quoted from the biography on monarchie.be has left out the "Princess" in "Princess Elisabeth", listing "Princess of Belgium" first compensates for the omission by preserving the preeminence of "Princess" before "Duchess".

Thanks, I looked it up on the website and indeed couldn't find an English version, so figured someone must have made a translation themselves. Thanks for confirming.

In the case of that post, it wasn't a translation. ? The Norwegian Royal Court's actual guestlist (link abovethread) used "Hennes Kongelige Høyhet Prinsesse Elisabeth – Hertuginne av Brabant". The English translation of that would be "Her Royal Highness Princess Elisabeth - Duchess of Brabant".

 

[Somebody]

In the case of that post, it wasn't a translation. ? The Norwegian Royal Court's actual guestlist (link abovethread) used "Hennes Kongelige Høyhet Prinsesse Elisabeth – Hertuginne av Brabant". The English translation of that would be "Her Royal Highness Princess Elisabeth - Duchess of Brabant".

Yes, it indeed wasn't a literal translation, sorry if I confused you once again because it was completely clear to me - someone made a 'liberal translation' of the guestlist that included all the guest but not exactly the same titles as in the Norwegian version. As you linked the Norwegian version I had been able to review it and it was crystal clear that 'princess Elisabeth' was in the Norwegian version as well as 'Duchess of Brabant' (I assume most members of the forum can easily read it without translation). So, let me explicitly state it once more to avoid any further debate on this non-topic: there was no mistake by the Norwegian court, so they don't need a note on this topic either ? . I suggest we'll leave it at this to not further derail this topic about Belgian titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes, it indeed wasn't a literal translation, sorry if I confused you once again because it was completely clear to me - someone made a 'liberal translation' of the guestlist that included all the guest but not exactly the same titles as in the Norwegian version. As you linked the Norwegian version I had been able to review it and it was crystal clear that 'princess Elisabeth' was in the Norwegian version as well as 'Duchess of Brabant' (I assume most members of the forum can easily read it without translation). So, let me explicitly state it once more to avoid any further debate on this non-topic: there was no mistake by the Norwegian court, so they don't need a note on this topic either ? . I suggest we'll leave it at this to not further derail this topic about Belgian titles.

Thank you for clearing that up. I am happy to leave the discussion of your Norwegian mention at that.

However (with apologies if I am confusing your meaning once again), since you emphasize that it was already crystal clear to you, and since there have been previous discussions where you responded to my posting translations of Dutch documents by stating that you are fluent in Dutch, please let me clarify that I am aware that you carefully read all linked sources prior to responding - for which I am very grateful - and that you are Dutch and also speak Spanish. But I am afraid that there are some members of this forum who do not click on and/or translate links, and some who do not read through earlier posts, and so some of my posts are worded to try and ensure they are still comprehensible to those readers.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Note also that "Duchess of Brabant" is not a peerage or a title of nobility, but is considered a "dynastic title" in the terminology of the royal decrees.

Yes, the personal titles granted to past royal princes and to Princess Elisabeth are termed "dynastic titles" in royal decrees. However, at the same time, they - and all other Belgian royal titles, including Princess of Belgium - also legally qualify as titles of the Belgian nobility. (This is in contrast to some other monarchies such as Sweden, where neither the princely nor the ducal titles of the Swedish royal family belong to the Swedish nobility.) See my response to macedonsky:

Belgian royal titles, dynastic or otherwise, belong to the Belgian nobility. All decrees conferring titles on members of the royal family since 1991 (including the 2015 decree) have referenced Article 75, or Article 113 as it is numbered today, of the Constitution, which states:

Article 113

The King may confer titles of nobility, without ever having the power to attach privileges to them.​

So, conferrals of titles in the Belgian royal dynasty are also conferrals of titles in the Belgian nobility. In accordance with that principle, titles such as Prince of Belgium and Princess of Belgium are legally registered as titles of nobility, as stipulated in federal guidance.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-24.html#post2455661
https://www.ibz.rrn.fgov.be/fileadm...ructions/liste-TI/TI012_Titre_de_noblesse.pdf

 

[Somebody]

Thank you for clearing that up. I am happy to leave the discussion of your Norwegian mention at that.

However (with apologies if I am confusing your meaning once again), since you emphasize that it was already crystal clear to you, and since there have been previous discussions where you responded to my posting translations of Dutch documents by stating that you are fluent in Dutch, please let me clarify that I am aware that you carefully read all linked sources prior to responding - for which I am very grateful - and that you are Dutch and also speak Spanish. But I am afraid that there are some members of this forum who do not click on and/or translate links, and some who do not read through earlier posts, and so some of my posts are worded to try and ensure they are still comprehensible to those readers.

Final comment ? : This time I referred to your translation of a single line of the Norwegian guestlist not to the translation of the more complicated Belgian legal documents. I am sure those translations are very much appreciated -especially since they are not very straightforward as we've found out time and time again. I guess it is your wording that sometimes makes me think you are trying to explain something specifically to me - while you are actually explaining it to others who might read it as well - as this is a forum! (I am quite sure I am doing something similar at times as well)

 

[cdm]

When the separate threads for Elisabeth were created they were all only mentioning The Duchess of Brabant. I then asked the mods to include Princess Elisabeth as only the Duchess title sounded strange to my Belgian ears.
The mods adapted the names but maybe forgot the fashion thread.

Anyway it’s not incorrect as she is the Duchess of Brabant. But she is almost always referred to as Princess or Crown Princess Elisabeth in Belgium.

Maybe that use is a Belgian custom?

For example I do remember Mathilde introducing Stephanie of Luxembourg when she attended te Queen Elisabeth Contest as La Princess Stephanie and not La Grande Duchesse Heritière.

In these forums the British use seem to be the norm, but that is not correct. Each country has their own rules and habits.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think it is sort of a missed opportunity not to bring Duchess of Brabant to the same prominence as Prince of Wales, Princess of Asturias, Princess of Orange.

Brabant is the absolute heartland of the Southern Netherlands, nowadays Belgium, once spawning a territory of today's Belgian provinces of Flemish Brabant, Walloon Brabant and Antwerp; the Brussels-Capital Region; and most of the present-day Dutch province of North-Brabant.

The Dukedom was established in the 12th C, way predating the 1830 monarchy and brings the intrinsic weight of "anciennity" to it.

Maybe the Belgian monarchy is a bit careful with the title as it is not uncontested. The French occupation ended the ancien régime in 1795. And the last reigning Duke of Brabant was Emperor Franz II of the Holy Roman Empire (Emperor Franz I of Austria).

The Houses of Habsburg (Austria) and of Borbón (Spain) still "claim" Brabant as a dynastic title. Maybe that is why the Belgian Court rather uses it as a honorific addition to a title rather than a proper, independent title "HRH The Duchess of Brabant"?

 

[cdm]

I think we should also bear in mind that there was a huge gap between 1951 an 1993 for the title as Boudewijn didn’t have children.
Filip was by 1993 widely known as Prins Filip.

I don’t know if Boudewijn and Leopold III as princes were more adressed as Dukes of Brabant.

Albert I and his brother Boudewijn were heirs but not Dukes of Brabant as they were the nephepws of the King.

So the tradition is maybe just not strong enough.

 

[Mbruno]

I think we should also bear in mind that there was a huge gap between 1951 an 1993 for the title as Boudewijn didn’t have children.
Filip was by 1993 widely known as Prins Filip.

I don’t know if Boudewijn and Leopold III as princes were more adressed as Dukes of Brabant.

Albert I and his brother Boudewijn were heirs but not Dukes of Brabant as they were the nephepws of the King.

So the tradition is maybe just not strong enough.

Civil wedding of Philippe and Mathilde: after pronouncing them man and wife, the Burghermaster refers to them as "the Duke and Duchess of Brabant".

 

[maria-olivia]

I think we should also bear in mind that there was a huge gap between 1951 an 1993 for the title as Boudewijn didn’t have children.
Filip was by 1993 widely known as Prins Filip.

I don’t know if Boudewijn and Leopold III as princes were more adressed as Dukes of Brabant.

Albert I and his brother Boudewijn were heirs but not Dukes of Brabant as they were the nephepws of the King.

So the tradition is maybe just not strong enough.

Right

Leopold I first Child Louis Philippe was Comte de Hainaut, he died suddenly, the second Son Leopold was Duke of Brabant and the third one Philippe Comte de Flanders (always in french). No Tittle for Charlotte.

Leopold Ii only Son who should have been Leopold III , died when he was 10.

Baudouin and Albert were Princes , Sons of the Comte de Flanders as wrote cdm .

Albert Ier first Son was Leopold , Duke de Brabant , the second Charles who was Comte de Flandre (Karel van Vlanderen) , and Princess Marie José has no tittle.

Leopold III was abroad during 10 years .
After the abdication of his Father Prince Boudouin did his first Oath as Prince Royal , and his second Oath in 1951 when he was 21 years old and became ie RoI Baudouin : Koning Boudewiin .

His Brother Albert was Prince de Liège and Queen Astrid on the balcony of Townhall presented baby Albert to his poeple who he was their Prince.

Now only Elicabeth is Duchess de Brabant but we are used to say Princess Elisabert. His Sibling will remain Princes and Princess.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

EDIT: Note that, in the Belgian documents, Albert's and Philippe's citations did not include family names, but both their spouses (Paola and Mathilde) were/are cited by their maiden surnames, which I find interesting. A distinction seems to be made then between royals by birth and royals by marriage.

Surnames were listed for both royals by birth and royals by marriage, because surnames were (and still are) required by the Civil Code in acts of civil status.

At the time of Albert's and Philippe's marriages in 1959 and 1999, the name "of Belgium" in their qualification of "Prince of Belgium" was regarded as being their legal surname. See here for a complete explanation and citations:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-18.html#post2333307

In fact, the entire purpose of the 1891 decree which created the qualification of Prince/Princess of Belgium was to adopt "of Belgium" as the family name of the (blood) members of the royal family (and not - as some claim - to create them princes and princesses, because they already held the titular dignity of HRH Prince/Princess prior to 1891). Citations here:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-23.html#post2440319

 

[Mbruno]

Surnames were listed for both royals by birth and royals by marriage, because surnames were (and still are) required by the Civil Code in acts of civil status.

At the time of Albert's and Philippe's marriages in 1959 and 1999, the name "of Belgium" in their qualification of "Prince of Belgium" was regarded as being their legal surname. See here for a complete explanation and citations:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-18.html#post2333307

In fact, the entire purpose of the 1891 decree which created the qualification of Prince/Princess of Belgium was to adopt "of Belgium" as the family name of the (blood) members of the royal family (and not - as some claim - to create them princes and princesses, because they already held the titular dignity of HRH Prince/Princess prior to 1891). Citations here:

Nevertheless, under the royal decree of 2015, "family name", when it is used, must appear between given names and dynastic titles, and before "Prince/Princess of Belgium". Since nothing is inserted for example between Elisabeth's given name and her dynastic title of "Duchess of Brabant" in the Royal Decree of 2019 awarding her the order of Leopold, I must conclude that she does not use any family name. In addition, "Prince/Princess of Belgium" is now explicitly referred in the Royal Decree of 2015 as a title, not as a family name.

A distinction seems to be made now between the royals by blood and their spouses, who, unlike the former, use a "family name" where family names should be inserted, i.e. after given names and before Prince/Princess of Belgium.

I am not sure either that the goal of the Royal Decree of 1891 was, as you claim, to adopt "of Belgium" as the family name of the (blood) members of the Royal Family. The fact that Leopold II kept the Saxony-Wettin shield in the royal coat of arms suggests to me that he saw his family name as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. In fact, that is also probably the case now with King Philippe (who also restored the Saxony shield to his personal arms and to the armorial of members of his family). However, as the Bernadottes in Sweden or the Glücksburgs in Denmark and Norway, he simply does not use the family name in public and private acts.

Also, in your analysis of the Royal Decree of 1891, I think you are confusing the prefix "Prince", which, in Belgium, is a titular dignity prefixed to the given names, with "Prince of Belgium", which is a title. One can hold both a titular dignity and a title (like "Prince Laurent, Prince of Belgium" or "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales") or hold the dignity without the title. The members of the Royal Family are not "Princes/Princesses" by virtue of having the title of "Prince/Princess of Belgium", which some of them BTW no longer have or will no longer have in the future, but rather by virtue of the conditions set out in the royal decrees, e.g. being children or grandchidren of King Albert II, or being born as children or grandchildren of the King or the Crown Prince (after 2015), or being legitimate descendants of King Leopold I.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A distinction seems to be made now between the royals by blood and their spouses, who, unlike the former, use a "family name" where family names should be inserted, i.e. after given names and before Prince/Princess of Belgium.

That was not the case for Mathilde, at least prior to the 2015 decree. Her family name d'Udekem d'Acoz was inserted after her family title of Countess in the state gazette in 2000.

https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/arrete-royal_n2001015137.html

"Ordres nationaux Ordre de Léopold Par arrêté royal du 19 septembre 2000 a été nommée : Grand Cordon La Princesse Mathilde, Marie, Christine, Ghislaine, Comtesse d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique (19.09.2000)"​

In addition, "Prince/Princess of Belgium" is now explicitly referred in the Royal Decree of 2015 as a title, not as a family name.

Precisely. To execute his intended restrictions on the transmission of the qualification of Prince/Princess of Belgium, King Philippe was compelled to issue a new royal decree in 2015 to reframe "of Belgium" from a surname (as the 1891 decree intended it to be) into a component of the title of nobility: The Constitution invests the King with the power to regulate titles of nobility, but not to restrict the transmission of surnames.

(At some point I must finish writing my series of posts explaining the mechanisms of the 2015 decree more fully ...)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not sure either that the goal of the Royal Decree of 1891 was, as you claim, to adopt "of Belgium" as the family name of the (blood) members of the Royal Family.

Then, how would you interpret the sentence "We are determined, Sir, to answer the wishes of all, by subjecting to the royal signature a decree which confers this name on them" in the official report introducing the 1891 decree?

I assume you have read the report, but here is the relevant excerpt again for readers who missed it earlier:

[...] on ne les désigne que par leur prénom, mais à l'étranger, on qualifie nos princes et princesses du nom de la Belgique et tel est bien leur nom qui leur revient.
Nous avons la conviction, Sire, de répondre au vœu de tous, en soumettant à la signature royale un arrêté qui leur confère ce nom, [...]

Translation:

([...] we designate them solely by their forename, but in foreign countries, they refer to our princes and princesses by the name of Belgium, and indeed such is their name that they merit.
We are determined, Sir, to answer the wishes of all, by subjecting to the royal signature a decree which confers this name on them, [...])​

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalbelge.htm#Belgique

The fact that Leopold II kept the Saxony-Wettin shield in the royal coat of arms suggests to me that he saw his family name as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

But from 1831 to 1880 the central shield was quarterly United Kingdom and Saxony, despite the Constitution of 1831 attributing the surname of Saxe-Coburg" to King Leopold I.

 

[cdm]

Titles of the Belgian Royal Family

Wasn’t the ‘of Belgium’ as surname installed by Albert I after WWI to replace the German surname?

I do remember that when Albert II got the first new ID card, it had ‘of Belgium’ as surname.
So it must be his official name.
His grandchildren were adressed ‘van België’ in school.

But now Delphine got of Saksen-Coburg as her new surname.

 

[maria-olivia]

Laurent's Children at the Lycée Français are I think de Belgique ?

 

[An Ard Ri]

But now Delphine got of Saksen-Coburg as her new surname.

I was wondering that if Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg married her Irish-American partner would be become Prince Jim/James?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Wasn’t the ‘of Belgium’ as surname installed by Albert I after WWI to replace the German surname?

Not really (although that eventually became a popular belief).

As explicitly stated in the official government report on the 1891 royal decree (linked in my last post), the 1891 decree already installed "of Belgium" as a family name (but not as the only family name, as the royal family still preserved the Saxe-Coburg name for the moment).

What actually occurred after World War One was that in October of 1920, the director of the Orders and Nobility department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the King's chief of staff, inquiring whether the King continued to bear his German titles.

Sometime in April of 1921 (the various sources I have used do not agree on the precise date), the King's chief of staff wrote the Ministry of Foreign of Affairs a letter of reply, in which he indicated that the King had decided to drop the Saxon titles from future official documents.

There are two points of note:

First, no royal decree or other legal document was ever promulgated to legalize the change.

Second, the modification was only applied to royals who were born after King Albert I's decision of 1921. The Saxon titles appeared in the death certificates of King Albert I in 1934, the marriage certificate of King Leopold III in 1941, and the death certificate of King Leopold III in 1983, as they were born before 1921 and the Saxon titles had already been entered into their civil registrations. Leopold III also declared in a letter of 1941 that his wife Lilian was entitled by marriage to him to bear the titles of Duchess of Saxony, Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

For those who are new to the subject, this article is a good introduction to the history of the debate over the royal surname.

https://www.lesoir.be/53935/article...ur-les-princes-qui-ne-seront-plus-de-belgique

I do remember that when Albert II got the first new ID card, it had ‘of Belgium’ as surname.
So it must be his official name.
[...]

But now Delphine got of Saksen-Coburg as her new surname.

Delphine received her new surname by a court ruling in 2020, five years after King Philippe's changes of 2015, which reconceptualized the titles and surnames in the Belgian royal family.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Also, in your analysis of the Royal Decree of 1891, I think you are confusing the prefix "Prince", which, in Belgium, is a titular dignity prefixed to the given names, with "Prince of Belgium", which is a title. One can hold both a titular dignity and a title (like "Prince Laurent, Prince of Belgium" or "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales") or hold the dignity without the title.

Not sure what you think I am confusing. I commented that the members of the Royal Family always (i.e, since 1833) held the dignity of Prince/Princess, nearly 60 years before they were created Prince/Princess of Belgium by the Royal Decree of 1891, so clearly the first can be held without the second.

However, in relation to "Prince of Belgium", I think you are confusing the official legal analysis before 2015 and after 2015. Before the 2015 decree clarified/altered the legal framework, "of Belgium" was commonly interpreted, in conformity with Belgian nobiliary law and custom, as a surname connected to the title of Prince/Princess - in the same manner that "d'Udekem d'Acoz" is a surname connected to the title of Count/Countess (and there is legally no such title as "Count/Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz").

I wrote a much more detailed post about this aspect of Belgian nobiliary law here:

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

And here is the detailed post regarding the reasons and the evidence for the legal recognition of "of Belgium" as a surname between 1891 and 2015:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-18.html#post2333307