Delphine Boël, daughter of King Albert II


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I fail to see what was wrong with my post. When I mean that Delphine has the chance to be left 'with nothing', this just means that her demands possibly will not be met by the Court of Justice. That is all. No need to react so overheated, thank you very much.

The only thing we know is that Delphine has laid down a claim against her legal father for 47 years, Jonkheer Jacques Boël, to deny his paternity. Consequently Delphine has laid down a claim against former King Albert, to recognize an alleged paternity. Both claims are now under reading by the Court of Justice. That is all we know. No more, no less.

Knowing that Jonkheer Jacques Boël is not her natural father still does not end his paternity. Knowing that someone else then must be Delphine's father still does not establish a new paternity. The one is not automatically connected to the other.
 
Last edited:
But it doesn't mean she's left "with nothing". She has her life and her career. If she loses the litigation at least she'll have the satisfaction of knowing she tried to get that cowardly man to admit he is her father or to provide the evidence that would allow it to be proven. If the system defeats her, so be it. At least she tried.

And as far as I'm concerned, Mr Boel is totally irrelevant to the issue.
 
Benjamin said:
Sybille de Sélys Longchamps, Delphine Boël and the Prince of Liège sometime in the 1970s.

Photo source: Delphine Boël & Albert II: la photo qui change tout - DH.be
Click to expand...

Roslyn said:
[....]And as far as I'm concerned, Mr Boel is totally irrelevant to the issue.
Click to expand...

In this article connected to this picture Delphine says that she knew Albert was her father when she was 17 years old. "Then between 17 and 32 years old, I said nothing." This is a juridical loophole for her because adults knowing that someone else is a natural parent must request for recognizing withing a limited period (1 year) otherwise the Law takes it for granted that there is no interest in an establishment of legal paternity.

Article 330, § 1, fourth lemma of the Civic Code:

The claim to fight a recognition as child can be established when the descendance does not correspond with the biological reality, or when the recognition did not meet the requirements unless there was a state of possession concerning the person whom recognized the paternity.

The claim to fight a recognition can be established by:
- the recognizing parent, within the year after discovering that the recognized child is not the natural child;
- the other parent, within the year after discovering that the other parent is not a natural parent;
- the child, at earliest on the day on which the age of 12 years is reached and at last on the day on which the age of 22 years is reached or within a year after discovering that the recognized parent is not the natural parent;
- the woman or the man claiming maternity or paternity within a year after discovering that he or she is a parent of the child.

The laywers of King Albert will probably state that Delphine's claim already must be dismissed on grounds of the third lemma. Then there is another difficult question for Delphine and that is the so-called state of possession which her father Jonkheer Jacques Boël has.

What is a state of possession? This is an important article in the Civic Code regarding the paternity. It is read in Article 331 nonies of the Civic Code:

The state of possession must be continuous and shows a factual paternity. The facts are:
- the child has always worn the surname of the parent;
- the parent has always treated the child as his/her own;
- the parent has provided in the upbringing and education;
- the child has treated the parent as his/her father or mother;
- the child has always been recognized by family and society;
- the state and public institutions have recognized the paternity.

As known Delphine has also laid down a claim against Jonkheer Jacques Boël, to end the paternity. Not only does she need to answer why she did not end this between 12 and 22 years old or within a year after discovering that her father was not her natural father. She also needs to fight that Jonkheer Jacques Boël has a state of possesion to her. That is hard to claim because in everything she has been a Boël, her whole life long, so she needs to disown everything what Jonkheer Jacques Boël has meant or done to her in her life.
 
Last edited:
:previous: I am a lawyer, though in a common law jurisdiction, not the sort of Napoleonic Civil Law jursidiction in which you and the Belgians reside, so I am able to appreciate your argument on a purely legalistic basis. I just think that the issues at stake here transcend the purely legal.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
The laywers of King Albert will probably state that Delphine's claim already must be dismissed on grounds of the third lemma. Then there is another difficult question for Delphine and that is the so-called state of possession which her father Jonkheer Jacques Boël has.

What is a state of possession? This is an important article in the Civic Code regarding the paternity. It is read in Article 331 nonies of the Civic Code:

The state of possession must be continuous and shows a factual paternity. The facts are:
- the child has always worn the surname of the parent;
- the parent has always treated the child as his/her own;
- the parent has provided in the upbringing and education;
- the child has treated the parent as his/her father or mother;
- the child has always been recognized by family and society;
- the state and public institutions have recognized the paternity.

As known Delphine has also laid down a claim against Jonkheer Jacques Boël, to end the paternity. Not only does she need to answer why she did not end this between 12 and 22 years old or within a year after discovering that her father was not her natural father. She also needs to fight that Jonkheer Jacques Boël has a state of possesion to her. That is hard to claim because in everything she has been a Boël, her whole life long, so she needs to disown everything what Jonkheer Jacques Boël has meant or done to her in her life.
Click to expand...

Thing is, that if she actively disowns Boel so effectively, I do think that it might end up enabling Boel to effectively legally disown her, leaving her with nothing. This man raised her and as far as we know, loved her as well. So this means that she'll have to essentially, very publicly, tell the world that this man means nothing to her and never did. I do think that since Boel has already drastically diminished the inheritance she is due, I think this would be the biggest mistake of her life. As it is she's already lost so much.
 
AristoCat said:
Thing is, that if she actively disowns Boel so effectively, I do think that it might end up enabling Boel to effectively legally disown her, leaving her with nothing. This man raised her and as far as we know, loved her as well. So this means that she'll have to essentially, very publicly, tell the world that this man means nothing to her and never did. I do think that since Boel has already drastically diminished the inheritance she is due, I think this would be the biggest mistake of her life. As it is she's already lost so much.
Click to expand...


Have you read anything in this thread?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
A clip and update about the case in English:

flandersnews.be video: Is King Albert Delphine Boël’s dad?

28/11/14 - Belgium's Constitutional Court will examine Delphine Boël's request for King Albert to be identified as her father after a lower court struggled with the case. To prove King Albert is her father Delphine Boël first has to show Jacques Boël isn't her dad.
Click to expand...

A verdict is expected at the beginning of december.
 
Last edited:
Delphine Boell added two renowed lawyers to her team:

'Bastaarddochter' koning Albert slijpt de messen|Prive| Telegraaf.nl

Apparently the court case is complicated. In Belgian law a child has the right to force the father to recognise him/her only before the 22nd birthday of the child. However Delphine only filed such a request when she was 45 y/o.
 
Last edited:
Besides the official recognition that he is in fact her father, what does Delphine get out of this and what does Albert lose?

I totally get that she wants and IMO deserves to her know who her biological father is....personally I think its too late for them to have a truly meaningful relationship...too much muck has been thrown about....but it might bring a little closure to Delphine.

What is Belgian law regarding an inheritance? I believe the French allow you to leave property & money to others in your will, is that the case in Belgium? If she is proven to be legally his daughter, is she automatically included in the will?

And if she is not, why doesn't Albert just acknowledge her? We know he had the affair, we know there is a possibility that she is his daughter...why drag the whole thing out?
 
Very good questions Zonk.
If you do recognize it as his daughter will have right to inheritance?
I believe, however, that the Delphine outside the financial and is perhaps moral justification for it anymore. To force the King to admit that it is his daughter. Although I have the feeling (do not know why) that if it was Paola King would have done.
 
Zonk said:
Besides the official recognition that he is in fact her father, what does Delphine get out of this and what does Albert lose?

I totally get that she wants and IMO deserves to her know who her biological father is....personally I think its too late for them to have a truly meaningful relationship...too much muck has been thrown about....but it might bring a little closure to Delphine.

What is Belgian law regarding an inheritance? I believe the French allow you to leave property & money to others in your will, is that the case in Belgium? If she is proven to be legally his daughter, is she automatically included in the will?

And if she is not, why doesn't Albert just acknowledge her? We know he had the affair, we know there is a possibility that she is his daughter...why drag the whole thing out?
Click to expand...
I agree with your post. It is beyond shameful for a father to not either recognize an offspring or submit to DNA testing to prove either/or of parentage. King Albert's behaviour is incomprehensible to me. It is a basic right of any child to know who their parents are. Royals do not get a pass.
 
Dear Marengo,
Would you like one of her aggressive paintings in your home ?

The best is to move back to London with mother , husband and children and remain quiet.
 
grevinnan said:
I agree with your post. It is beyond shameful for a father to not either recognize an offspring or submit to DNA testing to prove either/or of parentage. King Albert's behaviour is incomprehensible to me. It is a basic right of any child to know who their parents are. Royals do not get a pass.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting a couple of things.

As long as King Albert II was King, it was not possible to enforce him into a lawsuit as the king is inviolable. Instead of King Albert II, Dephine demanded DNA-profiles from Prince Philippe and Princess Astrid but she herself withdrew that demand in Semptember 2013.

Jonkheer Jacques Boël is her juridical father. She has carried his name for 47 years, was in all possible meanings his daughter and he has supporterd her with lots of money (the family Boël is one of the richest of the country). If there is "a strong family life" the 47 years of legal fatherhood can not be contested.

There is jurisprudence that fatherhood can be contested within a year of discovering the truth. Then is the legal question: when did Delphine discover the truth? Has she known it for years but accepted that her father was Jacques Boël? Then she can not fight his fatherhood (Belgian law makes no difference in natural and legal fatherhood. The father is the one who is the father according Law).

In the meantime Jacques Boël, totally fed up with his estranged daughter, has disinherited her from his mega-fortune. But also here are complications. For Law he simply is her father. Belgian Law does not allow parents to disinherit their own children...

In short the problem for Delphine is that she and her mother Sibylle Baroness de Sélys-Longchamps claim to have known all their life that Albert II is the legal father. The mother never started a procedure to have him as her daughter's legal father. When Delphine became an adult, she herself also never started a procedure to have Albert II as her legal father. Only now, way past her forties, she wants recognition, etc. Until that time she was a Boël, with her legal father having parenting rights and obligations, and she never contested it. That is the underlying problem here.
 
Last edited:
Although your legal points are perfectly valid, Grevinnan's argument, if I understood them correctly, is that voluntarily recognizing her (presumed) illegitimate daughter would be the morally right thing for King Albert to do, irrespective of any lawsuits or court proceedings. That fact that he didn't do that shows weakness of character on his part then.

On the legal issue per se, doesn't the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) take precedence over Belgian domestic law ? Could Delphine take her case to the European Court based on her right under the ECHR to know who her biological father is ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, it is very difficult because EU-states are only allowed to enforce someone to a DNA test when there is a serious crime or misdemeanour.


In most EU countries, also Belgium, it is ruled that if the mother is married to another man when she gave birth to the child or that man acknowledged his paternity and there exists a family like relationship between that man and the child, then the child’s biological father cannot challenge that man’s paternity.


In Belgium the child can challenge her father's paternity when she becomes and adult or within a year after the discovery of someone else's possible paternity. So here is a major obstacle for Delphine, who herself claimed that she and her mother "knew all their life long".
 
Mbruno said:
Although your legal points are perfectly valid, Grevinnan's argument, if I understood them correctly, is that voluntarily recognizing her (presumed) illegitimate daughter would be the morally right thing for King Albert to do, irrespective of any lawsuits or court proceedings. That fact that he didn't do that shows weakness of character on his part then.

On the legal issue per se, doesn't the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) take precedence over Belgian domestic law ? Could Delphine take her case to the European Court based on her right under the ECHR to know who her biological father is ?
Click to expand...

Yes, you got it. Irregardless of laws and rights under courts of law, for any parent to deny an offspring the right to know whether they are the biological parent is simply shameful. It shows a lack of character and integrity that is frightening.
 
I agree grevinnan. That has struck me all along...how could you do that?


LaRae
 
grevinnan said:
Yes, you got it. Irregardless of laws and rights under courts of law, for any parent to deny an offspring the right to know whether they are the biological parent is simply shameful. It shows a lack of character and integrity that is frightening.
Click to expand...


Well said. And lately I for one have been in the mood for holding people accountable for their actions.
 
grevinnan said:
Yes, you got it. Irregardless of laws and rights under courts of law, for any parent to deny an offspring the right to know whether they are the biological parent is simply shameful. It shows a lack of character and integrity that is frightenYing.
Click to expand...

Perfectly stated, Grevinnan.
 
I remember reading somewhere that at the time of their reconciliation in the late 70's early 80's, Paola extracted a promise from her husband that he would break all ties with his other family. I assume that also included no public acknowledgment that he had fathered a child with another woman.

Could it be that Albert is sticking to his indefensible guns to honor his promise to his wife? If so, it would explain his irrational(imo) decision to continue to deny what everyone in Belgium seems to know is the truth.

But with the state of Paola's health being what it is now, he is unlikely to change his mind anytime soon:sad:.
 
I feel sorry for Delphine, Albert should do the right thing and its does just look ridiculous that everyone else basically knows she's Alberts daughter but that he is the only one who doesn't recognise this.

That being said I don't understand why she continues to pursue the issue, Albert won't recognise her unless he is made by law and wants nothing to do with her so why bother. I get that its important to her and the right thing but if Albert won't recognise her why does a piece of paper saying he is your father matter so much. SO sad that she has ruined the relationship with the one man who acted like a father to her
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
I remember reading somewhere that at the time of their reconciliation in the late 70's early 80's, Paola extracted a promise from her husband that he would break all ties with his other family. I assume that also included no public acknowledgment that he had fathered a child with another woman.

Could it be that Albert is sticking to his indefensible guns to honor his promise to his wife? If so, it would explain his irrational(imo) decision to continue to deny what everyone in Belgium seems to know is the truth.

But with the state of Paola's health being what it is now, he is unlikely to change his mind anytime soon:sad:.
Click to expand...

In February it became clear that King Albert and Queen Paola have changed their marriage contract. They were married under prenuptial agreements but have now dropped these, making it a conventional marriage without conditions. Via this construction King Albert made sure that his spouse Queen Paola keeps the usufruct of their whole shared estate (and it is in the meantime a prevention against possible fighting heirs evicting mommie-dearest out of the house).

State Gazette of February 2nd 2015:

By Act of James Dupont, Notary - residing in Brussels, and dated the 16th of July 2014, His Majesty King Albert II Félix Humbert Théodore Christian Eugène Marie, Prince of Belgium, born in Brussels the 6th of June 1934 and Her Majesty Queen Paola Margherita Maria Antonia Consiglia, Princess of Belgium, Princess Ruffo di Calabria, born in Forte dei Marmi (Italy) the 11th of September 1937, have changed their premarital agreements as established by Act of Théodore Taymann, Notary - then having residence in Brussels, and dated the 12th of June 1959.

James Dupont, Notary.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
In February it became clear that King Albert and Queen Paola have changed their marriage contract. They were married under prenuptial agreements but have now dropped these, making it a conventional marriage without conditions. Via this construction King Albert made sure that his spouse Queen Paola keeps the usufruct of their whole shared estate (and it is in the meantime a prevention against possible fighting heirs evicting mommie-dearest out of the house).
Click to expand...

Unlike Princess Beatrix or Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert actually doesn't have a substantial estate of his own anyway. Queen Paola lives at Bélvèdere Castle, which is part of the Royal Trust (Donation Royale) and, hence, owned by the Belgian State. I can't imagine her being evicted from her home unless King Philippe or the Belgian government make that decision.
 
Mbruno said:
Unlike Princess Beatrix or Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert actually doesn't have a substantial estate of his own anyway. Queen Paola lives at Bélvèdere Castle, which is part of the Royal Trust (Donation Royale) and, hence, owned by the Belgian State. I can't imagine her being evicted from her home unless King Philippe or the Belgian government make that decision.
Click to expand...

The King has a private wealth and private properties. He owns the appartments 0701 and 0801 and the garages 65, 68 and 69 in the Icon-gebouw (picture) in Oostende, Belgium. The King owns Villa les Romarins and the two neighbouring properties in Châteauneuf-de-Grasse (France), see picture (the three buildings at the bottom and the lands around). The King owns an expensive yacht (see picture). The Queen has purchased an old vicarage in Villers-sur-Lesse (Belgian Ardennes) which is now under renovation (see picture). The royal couple also own properties in Paola's homeland Italy. So he is not exactly a pauper...

:lol:
 
I guess though compared to Elizabeth or Beatrix that is living like a pauper when you compare the stocks, shares and properties they own.
 
I think that we really don't know the extent of the Belgian fortune, I think they must have more than we see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
619
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
Kings Ferdinand I, Francis I, Ferdinand II, Francis II & Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Replies
3
Views
584
Blog Real
Blog Real
Q
Is this interesting?
Replies
5
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
Kings and Queens of Scotland
Replies
8
Views
506
Blog Real
Blog Real
Zonk
  • Sticky
King Abdullah II and Queen Rania Current Events 38: Aug 2023 -
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom