Juan Carlos Paternity Claims


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The two claimants, who have two different mothers, have already taken a DNA test which confirmed that their father is the same man. Their mothers say JC. JC, let's have a cheek swab if you are confident that you did not have relations with the mothers in question. It's easy enough to shoot holes in it, IF you are not the father. The problem, of course, is he has always had, shall we say, a 'man about town' reputation in the media. If one were to know, for example, that one has only had relations with X number of people, it's easy to keep track of.

I think the result was a fraud, they don't share thes same father.
 
The Fiscalia del Supremo (the Prosecutor-General at the Supreme Court) has adviced the Lords Justices of the Tribunal to reject Ms Sartiau's request for a DNA test. They advice the Tribunal to accept the application filed by the defense of Don Juan Carlos de Borbón and correct the admission of paternity suit filed by the Belgian citizen Ms Ingrid Sartiau.

According to the Prosecutor-General, the former monarch should not be requested to cooperate in a paternity case because such an order can not be given while the slightest evidence about the veracity of Ms Sartiau's claims is missing. This means that the Office of the Prosecutor-General supports the case that the lawyers of the former monarch have filed against the resolution by the examinating Court of Justice that Ms Sartiau's claim should be admissed. According the advice issued by the Prosecutor-General that resolution was "insufficiently motivated" and holds no ground which can stand any legal case in Court.

According to the ProsecutorGeneral, just providing a written document, an affidavit -filed by a Belgian notary- in which the mother of Ms Sartiau stated she remembered she once had a relationship with Don Juan Carlos, more than 40 years ago, is insufficiently backing of a possible proof required by law to file a claim of paternity, especially given the absence of any other element or data like letters, photos, messages, witnesses, etc. Jurisprudence usually considers this as a verisimilitude leading to rejection of a lawsuit. (Verisimilitude means that no citizen can be enforced to cooperate in a lawsuit purely on base of uttered assertions and hypotheses without any possible deduction of said claims limiting the space between truth and falsification).

In addition the Prosecutor-General has concluded that there were contradictions between the contents of the affidavit and public statements by Ms Ingrid Sartiau and her mother. It also concluded a lack of consistency in the versions told in public. In the affidavit, Ms Sartiau's mother stated that during a holiday at the Costa del Sol in 1965 she "met" a man with whom she had sex for three days. The hotel concierge told her it was "Prince Juan Carlos".

Ms Ingrid Sartiau, however, stated in an interview to a Belgian magazine that "the love story" of Don Juan Carlos and her mother "lasted from 1956-1966" after meeting at the home of a Belgian family which employed her mother. "She had no idea who the man was. It was only years later she found out it was Don Juan Carlos". The applicant has also told another version in a television interview for the Belgian television: Ms Sartiau's mother would have met Don Juan Carlos "during a holiday in France, she was with the family where she worked as a governess".


El fiscal rechaza que el Rey haga el test de ADN | Espa?a | EL MUNDO
 
Last edited:
This Sartiau sounds completely contradictory but IMO if I was in JC position, I would do the test of DNA: if I am that sure I'm not her parent why would I refuse to prove it? I would have nothing to hide... And doing so I would ashame Sartiau and put a rest to it. Of course, I am talking from a personal point of view. (And nothing juridical).
 
This Sartiau sounds completely contradictory but IMO if I was in JC position, I would do the test of DNA: if I am that sure I'm not her parent why would I refuse to prove it? I would have nothing to hide... And doing so I would ashame Sartiau and put a rest to it. Of course, I am talking from a personal point of view. (And nothing juridical).

This means that any idiot stepping forward and saying "I am his/her love-baby" can enforce anyone to participate into any formal investigation purely on basis of assertions, hypotheses or claims. I can understand the unwillingness of citizens to be dragged into juridical procedures and protest against allegations which come out of the blue and then are "honoured" by Justice, especially when there is absence of any other element like letters, photos, messages, witnesses, etc..

:flowers:
 
Last edited:
This means that any idiot stepping forward and saying "I am his/her love-baby" can enforce anyone to participate into any formal investigation purely on basis of assertions, hypotheses or claims. I can understand the unwillingness of citizens to be dragged into juridical procedures and protest against allegations which come out of the blue and then are "honoured" by Justice, especially when there is absence of any other element like letters, photos, messages, witnesses, etc..

:flowers:

I just said what I'd do if I wore his shoes...:whistling: And sincee he certainly is not a common person but a ex king it could also be seen as a favour to him... nothing to hide, nothing to fear IMO
 
As expected, the Tribunal has followed the advice by the Excma. Sra. Dª. Consuelo Madrigal Martínez-Pereda, Fiscal General del Estado (Chief Prosecutor of the State) to reject the claims of Ms Ingrid Sartiau.


The Tribunal has not given a motivation yet but will most likely refer to the advice of the Chief Prosecutor. In her advice she wrote that just providing a written document in which the mother of Ms Sartiau stated she remembered she once had a relationship with Don Juan Carlos, more than 40 years ago, is insufficiently backing of a possible proof required by law to file a claim of paternity, especially given the absence of any other element or data like letters, photos, messages, witnesses, etc.


In her advice the Chief Prosecutor pointed to the jurisprudence: such a lack of backing for claims is considered a verisimilitude which leads to rejection of a lawsuit. (Verisimilitude means that no citizen can be enforced to cooperate in a lawsuit purely on base of uttered assertions and hypotheses without any possible deduction of said claims limiting the space between truth and falsification).
 
Last edited:
Oh what a tangled web has been weaved...

Without sounding insensitive or un-feminist, I do feel a little sorry for JC about all off this. It's interesting that more or less everyone had been fast to write him off as a feckless cad. What would the reaction be if somone came forward claiming to be a child of Sofia who was put up for adoption before she married JC? Permit me to play Devil's Advocate for him?

Although he's got a bad sexual reputation for a reason, albeit one that I personally think is probably over exaggerated in popular culture, it is quite unlikely that he is the father of all three of these people. The fact that the courts in two different countries have thrown out the testimony of two of these people is telling as the French courts have no reason to protect JC's reputation; and as the Noos investigation shows the courts in Spain, if Mariano Rajoy had not included imminuty in the legalisation that allowed for his abdication, would not have hesitated to begin legal proceedings ether, so I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy going on.

I really don't think he is the father of either Marie-Jose de la Ruelle or Ingrid Sartieu. Their stories do not add up, and both seem to be clutching at straws as their 'evidence' is mostly circumstancial. This isn't to call either frauds or liars, they aren't after money and I get the feeling both were (and are) probably sincere in their beliefs but the fantasy of being royalty in disguise is very powerful and in the absence of concrete records; in de la Ruelle's case a side effect of older adoption laws that kept the identity of the birth mothers anonymous and often just omitted the fathers from the whole process. Sartieu's case on the other hand just seems odd and I get the feeling that her mother's testimony is maybe covering up somthing else. Her claims could well be true, but I find the fact her mother was able to keep her as a single mother in a time period where single mothers were regularly pressured to relinquish their children for adoption particularly interesting - was somone else financially supporting them? I can see why such a belief would be attractive, as its profoundly frustrating trying to piece together a personal history of conflicting evidence, deception and blank spaces. Its the not knowing that is the worst part and makes the fantasy all the more attractive.

Albert Sola on the other hand, he certainly does look like JC, more so than Felipe or the infantas to be honest. Its possible another member of the Bourbon clan could be the father (a possibility for the two women above as well) or Sola and JC's physical resemblence is just a coincidence. His story, however, is the one that make the most sense out of the three claimants. I'd say it's pretty likely that JC is his biological father. Given that JC would have been pretty young (I can't remember the dates but I've heard 1956/1958 being thrown around) when Sola was born I'd say that JC would either have been unaware of ms Bach being pregnant, or did know and would have been excluded from having any say over what happened regarding Sola being adopted out. The expectation was that it would all remain anonymous and all parties would get a "fresh start" and be allowed to get on with their lives.

However the question that's under all of this is - just because you're someone's biological parent, does that automatically entitle them to a relationship with you? I don't think so. Its a lot to ask of somone who might not have known you existed to suddenly turn around and accept you as their children and any possible inherentance or social obligations that would go with it. Its also unfair to other members of the families of those involved. We have no idea about what JC really thinks about all of this, he could be distressed, humiliated, starkly indifferent, relieved, or any other mix of emotions at having somthing that should be a private matter paraded through the courts and the press - Yes these people have a right to know if he may well be their father or not but JC also has a right that his privacy be respected and that he not be caused undue distress. But by refusing to take the test he's made this worse for himself than it needed to be and its only fuelling talk and making him look selfish and callow, and for all we know that may not be the case - its often not indifference and selfishness that keeps these men from coming forward, its the guilt and the shame.

Sorry about the length but its been on my mind for a bit. Thanks for your patience.
 
Last edited:
Addendum - that's my take on the claims mentioned in this thread - there has also been rumors of him being the birth father of two others - the names of the purported mothers escape me and probably others.

This all things considered is a great lesson why you should use birth control when you are conducting your affairs - it's just good manners and good sense.

Also I see that Delphine Boel has lost her court case - again.
 
All men whoever they are should recognize their child and man up and acknowledge them Disgusting having children from affairs and turning their back to them.
 
All men whoever they are should recognize their child and man up and acknowledge them Disgusting having children from affairs and turning their back to them.

Did you read my post properly RoyalRob? The point I was trying to make was that there is a double standard regarding fathers around these issues - I've never heard anyone talk about the mothers that way nor would we jump to such conclusions regarding their possible motivations for not wanting contact or choosing to keep their children or not, if they even had that choice in the first place. Apart from possibly sharing DNA these people are all strangers to one another and they are not children but grown adults - all things considered JC owes them nothing and is within his rights both legally and morally to not want contact or to acknowledge them. They have a right to have their doubts confirmed or disproved but nothing beyond that.

Besides, we don't know the full story of what happened or even if he is the father of them to start with. Points I was making in my posts.
 
Last edited:
Well we will have to agree to not agree that morally he is in his rights to dismiss her
 
Lord all this is really getting so tiresome. I personally don't like the DNA tests being the water mark to all things. Three women in California are now wanting to know the "sperm donor" from a clinic. Their children are of elementary school age. They now feel their children should know and be recognized by their birth father. What then? Will the men then have to send child support? It was dismissed immediately by judge. Thank Heaven! Ladies [and men] think before indulging. I also feel that when a false statement is made stating a gentlemen as her child's parent and it is proven that he 100% cannot be, that woman deserves jail time for damaging and killing a man's reputation. Plus all the man's court costs be paid 100% by the "lady". JMO
 
Lord all this is really getting so tiresome. I personally don't like the DNA tests being the water mark to all things. Three women in California are now wanting to know the "sperm donor" from a clinic. Their children are of elementary school age. They now feel their children should know and be recognized by their birth father. What then? Will the men then have to send child support? It was dismissed immediately by judge. Thank Heaven! Ladies [and men] think before indulging. I also feel that when a false statement is made stating a gentlemen as her child's parent and it is proven that he 100% cannot be, that woman deserves jail time for damaging and killing a man's reputation. Plus all the man's court costs be paid 100% by the "lady". JMO



Hmmm... as for jail time and paying court costs.. you'd have to prove the woman new damn well the man in question was not the father. Not every man wants to cooperate if a woman asks for a paternity test. The only other way is through the court.
 
Hmmm... as for jail time and paying court costs.. you'd have to prove the woman new damn well the man in question was not the father. Not every man wants to cooperate if a woman asks for a paternity test. The only other way is through the court.

These days the real issue is that there's more options for women to opt out of unplanned motherhood compared to men due to abortion, contraception, and welfare. These days on the other hand, even if you don't feel ready to be a father or even if the sex wasn't consensual or you don't have the money to support one, too bloody bad pay up mister! Are there men out there who run off and refuse to support their kids even if they have the means and capacity to do so? Of course! But that's not a reason to tar everyone with the same brush, somthing which helps nobody.

Likewise we are talking about grown adults here, not children in need of financial support, most of these people have had parents in a social sense and a desire to know your personal history and origins is understandable, esp where medical history may be involved, there is a point where you need to accept what happened and move forward with your life. There is a reason why in most western counties these kinds of things are expected to be handled via third parties and counseling is mandatory.

Back then on the other hand.... in the 50s-60s when these men and women were conceived though, more often than not options were limited as sex education was non existent, contraception hard to access (even for those in the upper classes) and even then accidents happen, and the hypocracy and double standards of the time overwhelming (trust me, back then nice girls very much did do it before marriage but just kept it on the low).

Being anonymously adopted out was the only solution to the "problem" as unwed mothers were regarded as immoral, unwed fathers feckless and irresponsible, and please keep in mind that in those days being born outside of marriage was recorded on your birth certificate and could seriously affect your rights as an adult. If one or both parties were married to other people that was another matter as the Delphine Boel case shows. Fathers were either completely invisible in the whole process (espically when the authorities got involved) or like the women desperate to avoid scandal or in many cases may not have even known - its hard to 'take responsibility' when you were not aware in the first place!

Having ones personal and sexual history dragged through the media and the courts is never a pleasant process and DNA testes are a tool - they are only as good as the people who are administering them and a shockingly large amount can go wrong - all they are really good for is proving beyond reasonable doubt that two people are not related. That was what was bothering me about all this, it just seems so invasive, cruel and counter productive. The truth is that putative fathers (and for that matter birth mothers) refusing contact and acknowledgement with adults who believe themselves to be their natural children happens more than many like to admit, and that it doesn't make them bad people for not wanting to do so.
 
Could the recent ruling in Belgium mean that Alberto Sola could call himself Infante? Mostly Catalan mischief making, but interesting nonetheless

https://www.elnacional.cat/enblau/c...albert-sola-joan-carles-felip_543513_102.html


I don't think a ruling by a Belgian court has any direct implication in Spain or any jurisdiction other than Belgium itself, but, for what is worth, the royal decree 1368/1987, which regulates the titles of the Spanish Royal Family, doesn't include any mention either to "legitimate" children.



But we are getting ahead of ourselves. None of JC's alleged "love children" have ever been recognized as his legal children AFAIK, so it is a bit premature to talk about titles, isn't it ?
 
Last edited:
:previous:

I suppose that if the Belgian court based its verdict on an EU law or international treaty to which Spain is also subject, the same arguments could theoretically be applied by a Spanish court. But given that it does not appear that the Belgian ruling will be published anytime soon, the legal grounds for the verdict will probably remain unknown.
 
It's interesting that the New York Times story is saying that his DNA matches Ingrid Sartiau's. I thought that claim had been disproved years ago.
 
King Juan Carlos allegedly has a fourth child!
Her name is Alejandra, and she is an illegitimate daughter who was secretly recognized by the former monarch.
This information is revealed in 'King Corp.', a book by journalists José María Olmo and David Fernández.

The biggest secret that the royal family has hidden from Spanish society is that, after the Infanta Elena (1963), the Infanta Cristina (1965) and King Felipe (1968) were born, Juan Carlos I had a fourth daughter, the fruit of of an extramarital affair with an aristocrat slightly older than him. This fourth heiress came into the world in the late seventies, early eighties. Her name is Alejandra, she is married, has a son and has never claimed any type of succession right. She grew up ignorant of who her father really was and, when she finally found out, she chose to continue to act as if the news had never reached her ears.
The data is precise enough to understand the size of this gap in the official history of an essentially genetic institution like the monarchy. But, at the same time, they are vague enough to protect the identity of the principal affected, who prefers to remain anonymous.
All the tenants of the Palacio de la Zarzuela know of Alejandra's existence, although she was not always like that. When Felipe VI was young, Juan Carlos I feared that he would meet his stepsister and the two would fall in love without knowing that they were family. When Alejandra was finally informed that her father was the King of Spain, a discreet rapprochement ensued. The then head of state tried to compensate for the lack of official recognition with affection and other signs of generosity, although he never treated her like his other three children.
Over the years, the confidence went beyond the walls of the Palace and began to be shared by the King with his circle of friends. He said that she was a good girl, very intelligent and prepared. He seemed proud of her, although he didn't give many details about her either.
Alejandra's existence has been confirmed by three people. The first is a former lover of the King emeritus to whom he confessed the paternity of the young woman. Subsequently, that ex-partner received the same information from other people in the monarch's environment. The second is a businessman with whom Juan Carlos I has shared a friendship for six decades, who knows the story and who has seen the King and Alejandra interacting as naturally as any father and daughter would. And the third source is Alejandra's old boyfriend, whom she is she also recognized her link with the royal family. Juan Carlos I and Alejandra's mother met when they were both young. They shared friends and a passion for hunting.
https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2023-04-27/hija-rey-alejandra-juan-carlos-secreta_3618494/

More information:
https://www.antena3.com/noticias/es...tocrata_20230427644a2edc73ab380001e1631b.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If true, then all fingers point to Alejandra de Rojas, she's the only one who fits the clues

Yes, everything points to this woman being the secret daughter of King Juan Carlos. It would be interesting to know what relationship she will have with Felipe, Cristina and Elena.
 
You mean a fourth child. Otherwise he must have another unknown daughter.

It's probably a translation mistake since in Spanish you would say "El rey tiene una cuarta HIJA" due to the gender specific rules of the language.
 
Please note that this is not the first claim and is all for the moment alleged and nothing has been proven or confirmed
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom