I don't think that is correct. Under the 2015 royal decree, the title of Prince/Princess of Belgium with the prefix HRH is available to:
And neither we nor the royal experts know whether the decree(s) even played any part in the court's verdict.
i) People who, at birth, are children or grandchildren of the King, or children or grandchildren of the heir to the throne.
Interestingly, the Dutch translation explicitly says "born", whereas the original French version does not.
In de openbare en private akten die hen aanbelangen, voeren de Prinsen en de Prinsessen, kinderen en kleinkinderen, geboren uit de nakomelingschap in rechte lijn van de Koning, [...]
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,
iii) Persons not included in categories (i) and (ii) above who would be nonetheless Princes/Princesses of Belgium under the royal decree of 1891 (e.g. King Albert II's half-sisters, Queen Paola).
My understanding is that the decree was not
intended to apply to Paola, any more than it was intended to apply to Delphine. The words "The Princes and the Princesses" at the beginning of Articles 1 through 4, respectively, meant that the provisions in those articles only applied to princes and princesses, not to queens (Paola) or commoners (Delphine).
The reference to other titles to which they have the right by virtue of their ancestry would be inconsistent with applying it to Paola, who legally has none (in Belgian legal documents she is styled as "of the Princes Ruffo di Calabria", but not as a Princess Ruffo di Calabria).
Category (i) is now the default rule, but, as far as I understand, applies only to persons who were born after the royal decree of 2015 came into effect.
My interpretation is that it applies to persons who were living after the decree came into effect, and both Articles 1 and 2 apply to King Philippe's children.
Categories (ii) and (iii) are legacy clauses that actually cover all living Princes/Princesses of Belgium other than Mathilde, Claire and Lorenz, who are Princes/Princesses of Belgium in their own right by virtue of specific, separate royal decrees.
And interestingly enough, those decrees do
not use the term "The Prince/Princess" to indicate the persons whom they apply to.
So far, the main practical effect of the recent changes is that grandchildren of Princess Astrid born after 2015, namely Prince Amedeo's children, are no longer Prince/Princesses of Belgium as they would otherwise have been under the repealed royal decree of 1991.
There is a possible interpretation, however, that direct descendants of Leopold I who are not Princes/Princesses of Belgium under (i)-(iii) above, including Princess Astrid's, Prince Laurent's and Princess Delphine's grandchildren (and the respective descendants thereof) are or will still be plain Princes/Princesses (though not "of Belgium") under the royal decree of 2015. Although that is not clear, the court's ruling in Delphine's case might suggest that is so.
As I said
here: "It is ironic that they [certain royal experts] rely on Article 2 of the 2015 law to assert that Delphine has the right to be a princess while claiming that Astrid's grandchildren Anna Astrid and Maximilian have no right to be Belgian princes(ses), even when the formula "Princes and Princesses" specifying descendants of King Leopold I in Article 4 is
identical to the formula specifying children and grandchildren of King Albert II in Article 2."
Links to the text of the law in Dutch and French are posted
here
Translation:
Article 2. In the public and private acts relating to them,
the Princes and the Princesses, children and grandchildren, born in direct descendance from His Majesty King Albert II carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium following their forename, and, so far as they carry them, their family name and their dynastic title and ahead of the other titles to which their ancestry gives them the right. Their forename is preceded by the predicate His or Her Royal Highness.
[...]
Article 4.
The Princes and Princesses, born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, who are not covered by Articles 1 to 3, carry following their forename and, so far as they carry it, their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right.
I have asked several times for an explanation of those individuals' apparent double standards, but have received no answer yet.
I would still appreciate an explanation, even from someone who does not share their opinion.
Maybe she felt it was outside the scope of her suit? She already got the statute of limitations on paternity claims overturned, which must surely be useful to others.
Her suit did include a request for titles (for herself). But yes, I suppose her friend could have been referring to that earlier lawsuit.
He had to be forced by one of the highest courts in the land to publicly acknowledge he was her biological father. How exactly does that not constitute "denial"?
I believe Duc_et_Pair meant that he did not publicly release any statements claiming to not be her biological father.
