Delphine Boël, daughter of King Albert II

[AristoCat]

I expect it will be tossed out of court since the King cannot be sued. I cannot see how a court could compel Philippe or Astrid to give a DNA sample for an alleged sibling.
Her motive seems pretty clear to me, She has been disinherited by her legal father because of her repeated and public statements that she is not his daughter. Her business is bankrupt. Voila, lets sue the King!!

I think her motives are less than pure as well; when will it stop?

Lets say she gets the money; now, she wants a title.

Then she wants to be a legitimate member of the family.

Then she wants to make appearances.

Then she wants a place in the succession.

She messed up her life by disowning the man who raised her and who provided a great life and she's lost her business mainly because it was not a practical field to be in (independent artists rarely fully succeed) and there is little chance of her getting right back on her feet with a fresh start at her age.

So now she's suing the king, bad enough, but now determinedly dragging his heir and daughter Astrid into this. What a mess, eh?

 

[Marengo]

I find it odd that so many here are hostile to Delphine and NOT to the king. The king fathered her, until 1978 he spent most time with her and her mother (they practically lived together as a family & didn'tsee his wife and children for weeks sometimes). In 1978 Boudewijn - who mainly blamed Paola- gave Albert & Paola a choice: try to reconsile OR get a divorce & lose the royal privileges. They chose the first option, helped by their new-found catholicism. Now, that Albert & Paola chose to reconcile is good for them, but that his daughter became the victim of that is not.

It is not a question IF she is his daughter. People around the court, in politics etc. see it as a fact. I have not read even one (!) remark in the Belgian press, scholars, (royal) historians or others that doubts this. As Mario Danneels already showed in his biography about Paola, it was widely known, an open secret almost.

Why the king simply tries to ignore the fact that he has a daughter and grandchildren walking on this planet is beyond me. That he doesn;t want to do that in public is understandable, but he could have made an effort to see her in private. He chose the easy way out, ignored that he fathered a child and looked the other way. Never a good option IMO. Delphine is obviously hurt by that, and if anything explains her present case it must be that. A frustrated, angry and hurt woman looking for revenge. Not the best motive either perhaps, but very understandable.

So instead of focussing on Delphine I think Albert is the main one to blame. He walked away from his responsibilities. That he faces some public embarrassement at the moment serves him right IMHO. I very much doubt that Delphine will ever get a DNA test or any recognition from her father though.


------------
Some updates:

Today's court case is led by three judges. This was done upon request of Delphine's lawyer who hopes that this will lead to a more fair look to this case.

Delphine Boël zet alles op alles - HLN.be

-
The Walloon socialist party says that it is time for Albert II to enter the 21st century. They mention that for the king, the same rules apply as to other fathers and mothers in the country. They think that the king should try to face reality, talk to her and try to figure this out in private. Something that the king has been reluctant to do over the last decades.

Mayeur (PS): "Tijd dat koning 21ste eeuw binnentreedt" - HLN.be

-
According to Patrick deClerck, the last straw for Delphine was that when Delphine's daughter became severely ill last month, she did not receive a word from the king.

"Ziek kind dreef Boël naar rechter" - HLN.be

The reactions to the online articles about this case are overwhelmingly in favor of Delphine btw. Though most think that her case will not have a chance, and that the lawyers of the court will drag on/postpone this trial forever.

 

[cdm]

The court hearing is postponed until September: article
Delphine claims to have been discriminated in work opportunities.

I wonder if she regrets the fact that she didn't stay in London after the secret got out, let it all blow over and maybe still be in touch with her biological father.

 

[NGalitzine]

She has not handled this situation well at all. Neither has the King, but Delphines public rants and quest for money makes it all about revenge and greed. Sorry but I have very little pity for her at all.

 

[An Ard Ri]

What impact if any is this having on the popularity of King Albert II,whom I believe is very popular figure.

 

[AristoCat]

Who knows.

Supposedly Albert had a decade long relationship with Delphine from her birth to age ten and Philippe and Astrid were shut out until Paola and Albert reunited.

Either Albert has a private relationship with her and she can have that much, or she can push for public status and a publicly acknowledged relationship. Chances are though, Albert is not interested in either one and she has to learn to accept it.

It's not 'nice,' but it's no different than so many other women/men who have parents who don't want anything to do with them.

 

[maria-olivia]

What will the King say in his Speech for belgian National Day (21 july)

 

[rominet09]

Somehow I believe he won't talk about it and I really don't think it damages the King's image. Let's face it it was more than 45 years ago !

 

[Marengo]

It wasn't 45 years ago,it is now! He has a daughter and grandchildren walking around that he refuses to talk to/meet. Still, since this news is already known since 1999, it has very little impact.

As expected, the case immidiately got postponed to September.
Rechtszaak Delphine Boël meteen uitgesteld - HLN.be

According to yesterday's documentary I saw on King Boudouin on the Flemish public channel, Albert and Paola only reunited in the mid-eighties. Baudouin only allowed a divorce under very severe conditions (him having very limited contact with his other 3 children for example). baroness Sybille and Delphine moved toLondon and Paola and Albert reunited.

 

[Princess Xenia]

Somehow I believe he won't talk about it and I really don't think it damages the King's image. Let's face it it was more than 45 years ago !

I think he will mention just a very little, just like his 1999 Christmas speech. If there is a potential damage to the king's image it should have done its job years ago. I think the only damage is in his family and the pressure it has put on them.

 

[blauerengel]

I think he will mention just a very little, just like his 1999 Christmas speech. If there is a potential damage to the king's image it should have done its job years ago. I think the only damage is in his family and the pressure it has put on them.

Well,it may not do any "damage",but it certainly does affect his credibility!

Personally I do not have a problem with out-of-wedlock children,in the past they were just not mentioned or everyone pretended that nothing has happened, nowadays there is not so much social stigma to be a single-mom or to be unfaithful in a marriage-if it is handled in a proper way.
Every man should accept his natural children, nobody should grow up with the knowledge of being unwanted.
Delphine certainly behaved strange in the media and hurt the man who adopted and raised her, but I also understand that she made a lot of mistakes because she was angry,frustrated and hurt. People do a lot of stupid+strange things when they are in such a state, that´s why I believe it would help if the king talked about the matter openly.

Honesty is usually the best way to solve a problem and make up for mistakes

 

[maria-olivia]

I agree blauerengel it does affect his credibility and therefore I am waiting his National Speech on July 21th

 

[MAfan]

Well, if King Albert's credibily has not been affected in the last 14 years - since the story of Delphine being his daughter was made public - I don't see why it should be affected now.
Just because she has asked the DNA test?

 

[iceflower]

.

Delphine Boël has opened her exhibition "Happy Sadness" in Grimaud, France, on July 12, 2013.



** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** Pic 3 **

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I don't think this "cold" situation will get better if Albert talked about her in public. What might help is if she and Albert meets in private and give each other forgiveness for the "cold" years and discusses about everything they both want to discuss to make the life easier for both of them. If she is the daughter out of wedlock to Albert, she should not be treated like a member of the royal family but he should be a real man and accept her as his and meet her sometimes like Prince Bernhard of Netherlands did with his out of wedlock daughters

 

[Pranter]

I dislike this attitude (from some countries with monarchies) that children born outside marriage are not members of the royal family. If they have a royal parent, they are royal. If their father is the king, their father is the king. Their royal blood is the same as 'legitimate' heirs.


LaRae

 

[gerry]

I dislike this attitude (from some countries with monarchies) that children born outside marriage are not members of the royal family. If they have a royal parent, they are royal. If their father is the king, their father is the king. Their royal blood is the same as 'legitimate' heirs.


LaRae

I can imagine you might think this; from one point of view we are all brothers and sisters in the family of homo sapiens. However, you write exactly what the problem entails with Mlle Boel and the King of the Belgians; she was born outside of wedlock so she is not a member of the royal family. The law always trumps bloodlines.

 

[NGalitzine]

I dislike this attitude (from some countries with monarchies) that children born outside marriage are not members of the royal family. If they have a royal parent, they are royal. If their father is the king, their father is the king. Their royal blood is the same as 'legitimate' heirs.


LaRae

If my father had had a child with another woman while married to my mother I can see no reason why I should have to consider that child a member of my family. I accept that he would have had some responsibility towards the child, but the child would not be family.

 

[Pranter]

I can imagine you might think this; from one point of view we are all brothers and sisters in the family of homo sapiens. However, you write exactly what the problem entails with Mlle Boel and the King of the Belgians; she was born outside of wedlock so she is not a member of the royal family. The law always trumps bloodlines.

Except it (the law) doesn't...because there are countries founded on illegitimate bloodlines.

Further in the day of the modern era where countries (and the people) accept and call for all manner of liberal policies it seems to be out of step that royal families are not allowed the same 'rights'.


LaRae

 

[Lee-Z]

If you have a royal parent and are subsequently adopted by another parent (father in this case), than you are a member of that family and not of the royal family anymore (same as with non-royals...)
However, i can imagine it's very frustrating that there used to be contact between them and now not anymore; maybe things can be arranged in private when K.Albert is not king anymore, and maybe even get to a situation like P.Bernhard of the NL had with two of his illegitimate children...
but even there: the contact was primarily between him and the children... after his death there is no contact anymore between the dutch royal family and P.Bernhard's other daughters, so the fact that Ms. Boel has sued her alleged half-brother and -sister is imo not a wise move...

 

[Pranter]

If my father had had a child with another woman while married to my mother I can see no reason why I should have to consider that child a member of my family. I accept that he would have had some responsibility towards the child, but the child would not be family.

The child would be your blood and by extension your family. Now as to whether or not you were close or even friendly is another issue. It's not the child's fault the parents were immoral.



LaRae

 

[Marchesina]

I dislike this attitude (from some countries with monarchies) that children born outside marriage are not members of the royal family. If they have a royal parent, they are royal. If their father is the king, their father is the king. Their royal blood is the same as 'legitimate' heirs.


LaRae

but the point is that, to be considered a legitimate member of the royal family, and therefore be granted of title and be styled Royal Highness or whatever, one needs to be born within a legal marriage. this means that one's parents needs to be married the way in each country is considered legal. In Belgium, for example, one needs to be married civilly before than religiously. law is law after all....and kings don't make laws these days

 

[grevinnan]

If my father had had a child with another woman while married to my mother I can see no reason why I should have to consider that child a member of my family. I accept that he would have had some responsibility towards the child, but the child would not be family.

If that was the case the child would be part of your father's family whether you liked it or not. And for the father it would be his responsibility that all of his children are acknowledged and supported in all manners that a responsible adult should do. If you as a child in that situation would like to determine who "your" family is that would be for your parents to deal with. It is not part of a child's prerogative to determine who is and who is not "family".

 

[Ish]

If that was the case the child would be part of your father's family whether you liked it or not. And for the father it would be his responsibility that all of his children are acknowledged and supported in all manners that a responsible adult should do. If you as a child in that situation would like to determine who "your" family is that would be for your parents to deal with. *It is not part of a child's prerogative to determine who is and who is not "family".*

I disagree here. It is an individual's prerogative to determine who they consider to be their family.

Family is more than simply who you're related to. Some people consider half-siblings to be family, others don't. It's indicative of the type of relationship that they have. Similarly, some people consider step-siblings or extended family members to be family while others don't.

It might be a father's responsibility to acknowledge and care for all of his children, but it is not a child's responsibility to consider half-siblings their family, nor are they required to do so.

 

[NGalitzine]

I disagree here. It is an individual's prerogative to determine who they consider to be their family.

Family is more than simply who you're related to. Some people consider half-siblings to be family, others don't. It's indicative of the type of relationship that they have. Similarly, some people consider step-siblings or extended family members to be family while others don't.

It might be a father's responsibility to acknowledge and care for all of his children, but it is not a child's responsibility to consider half-siblings their family, nor are they required to do so.

Exactly. Just because a parent slipped up does not mean everyone else has to accept the end product as part of the family. Heck it doesnt even mean the parent has to accept the product of the affair as part of his family. His only obligation would be a financial one (general care,education, maintenance) until the child obtained its majority. You can not oblige anyone to have an emotional connection to another person or to include them in their family.

 

[rominet09]

Exactly. Just because a parent slipped up does not mean everyone else has to accept the end product as part of the family. Heck it doesnt even mean the parent has to accept the product of the affair as part of his family. His only obligation would be a financial one (general care,education, maintenance) until the child obtained its majority. You can not oblige anyone to have an emotional connection to another person or to include them in their family.

I totally agree with you. You cannot force someone to love you

 

[MAfan]

I totally agree with you. You cannot force someone to love you

And this exactly seems to be what Delphine claims to be doing with King Albert. Calling him to a court with the aim of persuading him to have a relationship with her, when it's clear that the King doesn't want to have anything with her.

 

[Al_bina]

I fully agree with the opinions of Ish and rominet09. Ms. Boel can demand inheritance she might be entitled to by law. However, she can not thrust herself into the family that wants nothing to do with her.

 

[AristoCat]

Another thing is, that Delphine had Albert during her formative years while Philippe and Astrid and Laurent didn't. I imagine that engenders resentment; then go figure, Delphine wants to drag them into this mess. I don't see how Delphine can possibly think they would want her around now.

 

[Roslyn]

I fully agree with the opinions of Ish and rominet09. Ms. Boel can demand inheritance she might be entitled to by law. However, she can not thrust herself into the family that wants nothing to do with her.

But this man has two families. Though the members of his legitimate family are under no obligation to welcome her, she and her children are part of his family whether he likes it or not. And I think he is behaving very shabbily about the matter. He sounds spineless to me, and not a man I could respect.