Perhaps the Duke should have waited for the vows of matrimony before satisfying his sexual needs if he feels so strongly on his dynasty. He's starting to sound like a ridiculous man, parading one son through the streets of Spain and rejecting another.
Already at the time of the pregnancy it was communicated that this was a result of "an independent decision of the mother" which was not extrapolated because of reasons of privacy.
As a result of this both the mother and the Prince agreed that there would be no paternity claim of the father, that there would be no legal relationship between the Prince, Mrs Klynstra and the child. When the child was born, the mother was the only registered parent in the municipal registry.
The child was not hidden away from his donor. On the contrary: he was part of events in the Royal House and the House of Bourbon-Parma. The child grew up on the estate of his grandparents, the Count and Countess van Rechteren-Limpurg.
The legal team of the Prince has two objections:
- in 1998 the revised Nobility Act was introduced. Natural children from a titled father belonging to the nobility could request to be known with their father's title. There was no retroactivity. Carlos Klynstra was born before the new Act came in force without retroactive working;
- the House of Bourbon-Parma is -beside the Royal House- the only royal family in the Netherlands, with a codex, statutes and rules. There is no any Royal House which considers children born outside a marriage as dynasts. Enforcing the modernized Nobility Act with retroactive workings would mean that a non-dynast starts a whole new lineage of the House of Bourbon-Parma without dynastic rights but with indentical style and title, which was "undesireable".
The Court of Justice understood the objectives of the Duke but was of the opinion that since the four children of Princess Irene were incorporated into the Nobility of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, they -and their children- are Dutch nobles and the Dutch justice system only speaks for the Dutch titulature. The Court has no jurisdiction over foreign titles and therefore had no opinion about that.
The Court agreed with the Prince that there was no retroactive working in the Nobility Act for the nobility of extramarital children born before 1998 (like Carlos Klynstra).
The Court of Justice also agreed with the Prince that the legislation on name and birthright still is in development and that the way how a pregnancy was caused is still in ongoing jurisprudence: has a child from a donor the absolute right on his donor's surname? Has a perfectly legal agreement between both natural parents -that there would be no legal paternity and choice of set surname- not to be respected?
The Court agreed that this was a balancing of clashing legal rights. In the classification of clashing rights the Court found that the right of the natural child on the surname of the father was leading. In the Netherlands name right, titulature of nobility is an integral part of the surname. So two rights are clashing: the son of Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme can not claim nobility with retroactive workings. But he can claim to have his father's surname. The title and style are part of the surname, so he can become Carlos jr. prins de Bourbon de Parme.... In this the Court classified the name right over the nobility right. Justification: the name right is coded in the European Convention of Human Rights. Nobility is not. The ECHR is an international treaty overturning national legislation.
The Duke can go in appeal against the decision of the Court of Justice. For so far Carlos Klynstra had not effectuated his request: there is no Royal Decree concerning his name change.