Delphine Boël, daughter of King Albert II

[Duc_et_Pair]

Maybe they re found happiness but it seems like there were still problems. Albert knew that Delphine was his child.. he must have known that the scandal might one day become more public.. and to just run away from it was not a good move. He and Paola should have agreed that with their marriage mended, if the issue of his daughter came up, Alb would acknowledge that he had been at fault and had a child and that he would accept her. Tehir marriage went through some very bad times, but we've been told that they got over it and had found happiness again.. so they should have been able to accept what had happened in the past...

According the author Mario Danneels (who revealed Delphine to the public) it seems the core of Delphine's problem is Queen Paola. This Italian Donna has her strong pride. "No one plays with the feet of a Ruffo di Calabria!" A formal recognition of Delphine would hit old wounds open and expose her as the betrayed lady, whom has to endure the fruit of her husband's infidelity. A position unacceptable for her. She has her pride. Basta. Mario Danneels claimed Princess Paola agreed with Prince Albert having informal contacts but no more than that. (This indeed did happen. Albert regularly visited Delphine).

When Mario Danneels revealed Delphine, the royal couple more or less acknowledged this in the King's Christmass Address, hoping that this old ghost from the past would fade away. But when Delphine broke the status quo by going full public and insisting on a public recognition by King Albert, it seems it was Queen Paola having the attitude: "Over my dead body! I have my pride. I am the Queen. No way!" Mario Danneels claims that the exhausting blockade to recognize Delphine originates in Queen Paola's pride and it enraged her that this über-wealthy kid, born with sixteen silver spoons in her mouth, is ripping open wound after open wound.

So far the theory of Mario Danneels.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

According the author Mario Danneels (who revealed Delphine to the public) it seems the core of Delphine's problem is Queen Paola. This Italian Donna has her strong pride. "No one plays with the feet of a Ruffo di Calabria!" A formal recognition of Delphine would hitold wounds open and exposes her as the betrayed lady, whom has to endure the fruit of her husband's infidelity. A position unacceptable for her. She has her pride. Basta. Mario Danneels claimed Princess Paola agreed with Prince Albert having informal contacts but no more than that. (This indeed did happen. Albert regularly visited Delphine).

When Mario Danneels revealed Delphine, the royal couple more or less acknowledged this in the King's Christmass Address, hoping that this old ghost from the past would fade away. But when Delphine broke the status quo by going full public and insisting on a public recognition by King Albert, it seems it was Queen Paola having the attitude: "Over my dead body! I have my pride. I am the Queen. No way!" Mario Danneels claims that the exhausting blockade to recognize Delphine originates in Queen Paola's pride and it enraged her that this über-wealthy kid, born with sixteen silver spoons in her mouth, is ripping open wound after wound.

So far the theory of Mario Danneels.

But wasn't it only after King Albert cut off private contact that Delphine Boël began to speak publicly about their relationship? Was Queen Paola (according to Mario Danneels) in agreement with the cutoff of private contact?

 

[Benjamin]

Why would Sybille not be allowed to see the Royal children? Is that what you mean? It seems to me that Albert coms out looking worse, if he really loved this woman so much he was prepared to think of a divorce to be with her, why reject their daughter?

The divorce documents drawn up under Baudouin's supervision had Sybille not being able to (ever) see or meet Albert and Paola's children as one of the conditions of the divorce. Hard to know if Baudouin or Paola or both wanted that stipulation included. Anyway, as Marie Olivia noted, Sybille found this something she could not accept, because she was not a bad woman, and she probably hoped that at some point in the future, if she and Albert stayed together, that she would be able to meet his children.

One interesting aspect of this whole affair is how clearly it has shown that Sybille has more paternal/maternal instincts than Albert and Paola combined. Delphine has always made it clear that her mother and she have a strong relationship, and that Sybille has been a strict but loving mom. Those uninformed persons who write that Delphine was spoiled should listen to one of her interviews: Sybille adored her daughter, but almost went overboard in trying to prevent Delphine having an attachment to material goods. While laughing about it now, Delphine has recalled that after every birthday party she had, Sybille would get Delphine to gather all of the presents she had received, and they would then take these gifts to charity. Mother and daughter might have been financially comfortable, but Sybille was not letting Delphine have whatever she wanted.

Philippe and Astrid have stayed quiet about their parents, but Laurent is a living example of how childhood neglect can effect the adult offspring of two people who were not "hands-on" parents.

 

[Benjamin]

But wasn't it only after King Albert cut off private contact that Delphine Boël began to speak publicly about their relationship? Was Queen Paola (according to Mario Danneels) in agreement with the cutoff of private contact?

Yes, and yes.

It was only after Albert made his 1999 Christmas speech, wherein he subtly confirmed his affair with Sybille and the existence of Delphine, that Delphine called Albert because Sybille had started to be hounded by the press in London and Delphine wanted to find out if Albert could help keep the paps away, that Albert then responded, "Leave me alone. You are not my daughter." In that way, the line of communication between father and daughter that *had* existed since Delphine was born was terminated. Then, Delphine tried to initiate contact through various other private channels, but Albert rebuffed all of these. It was only after ever other option was exhausted that Delphine started to speak publicly.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But wasn't it only after King Albert cut off private contact that Delphine Boël began to speak publicly about their relationship? Was Queen Paola (according to Mario Danneels) in agreement with the cutoff of private contact?

Yes. Delphine going public blew up the public status quo which worked perfectly for decades: "You are Jacques & Sybille Boël's daughter. But you, and a few insiders, know the Prince de Liège is your natural father". This status quo already became wobbly after Mario Danneels' revelations in his book.

 

[Benjamin]

Yes. Delphine going public blew up the public status quo which worked perfectly for decades: "You are Jacques & Sybille Boël's daughter. But you, and a few insiders, know the Prince de Liège is your natural father". This status quo already became wobbly after Mario Danneels' revelations in his book.

It was Albert essentially admitting his eighteen-year affair with Sybille and his fathering of Delphine in his 1999 Christmas speech to the Belgian nation that created the problem.

 

[maria-olivia]

Thanks Benjamin !
A lot of Belgians knew the Delphine Affaire before the Book i
e . a. When the Prince of Liege went on an Economic Mission the airplane stopped in London before Brussels . No body spoke about that.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It was Albert essentially admitting his eighteen-year affair with Sybille and his fathering of Delphine in his 1999 Christmas speech to the Belgian nation that created the problem.

According Mario Danneels, King Albert, in essence an easygoing goodnatured laissez-faire laissez-passer type of fellow, wanted to settle the situation with Delphine in harmony, but that was not in the way of thinking of Queen Paola, with her fierce personality.

I have always wondered myself: why is King Albert making such a fuss? But the theory is that Queen Paola was the one reminding Albert they had an agreement which saved their marriage: no formal relationship with Delphine, only informal contacts. I think we will learn some 20 years after their deaths. When things start to reveal. All is guesswork now.

 

[Prinsara]

It was Albert essentially admitting his eighteen-year affair with Sybille and his fathering of Delphine in his 1999 Christmas speech to the Belgian nation that created the problem.

Isn't it funny he tacitly admitted it to a country, and then lied to Delphine and refused to help or speak to her?

There is a wife's pride, there is panic, and there is cowardice.

If Albert was expecting no repercussions from his Christmas speech, who told him lying for the next twenty years would make him look any better?

 

[Denville]

Isn't it funny he tacitly admitted it to a country, and then lied to Delphine and refused to help or speak to her?

There is a wife's pride, there is panic, and there is cowardice.

If Albert was expecting no repercussions from his Christmas speech, who told him lying for the next twenty years would make him look any better?

He certainly hasn't behaved very well. He and Paola must have realised that in today's world it was possible - evne probable... that the affair and the birth of Delphine would become known facts instead of rumors and that DNA testing would mean that he could not just deny his fatherhood.

 

[Mbruno]

He certainly hasn't behaved very well. He and Paola must have realised that in today's world it was possible - evne probable... that the affair and the birth of Delphine would become known facts instead of rumors and that DNA testing would mean that he could not just deny his fatherhood.

Maybe people with an upbringing like Albert's and Paola's are not very much in tune with "today's world". Furthermore, they were probably raised to expect a deferential attitude towards the Crown and might have assumed the courts would never allow a DNA test to be taken.



In fact, technically speaking, their assumption was not entirely far-fetched since Albert as king had constitutional immunity and could not be sued. It was Albert's abdication that allowed Delphine to move ahead with the lawsuit.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] He and Paola must have realised that in today's world it was possible - evne probable... that the affair and the birth of Delphine would become known facts instead of rumors and that DNA testing would mean that he could not just deny his fatherhood.

The country's supreme court had to strike down portions of the Civil Code to allow Delphine's court case to progress (it was far in excess of the legally designated age limit and statute of limitations for paternity cases), so it was not necessarily probable that it would come to court-ordered DNA testing.

 

[Prinsara]

The country's supreme court had to strike down portions of the Civil Code to allow Delphine's court case to progress (it was far in excess of the legally designated age limit and statute of limitations for paternity cases), so it was not necessarily probable that it would come to court-ordered DNA testing.

That's very interesting. I wonder why. National interest?

The article says: "The Constitutional court has now ruled that the right to know who your biological father is, is more important than the 22 year age limit and that, consequently, Delphine Boël need not comply with the legal age limit."

Lovely from an egalitarian perspective, but I really wonder if that verdict would have happened if the plantiff (and "potential dad") were not so prominent.

 

[Roslyn]

That's very interesting. I wonder why. National interest?

The article says: "The Constitutional court has now ruled that the right to know who your biological father is, is more important than the 22 year age limit and that, consequently, Delphine Boël need not comply with the legal age limit."

Lovely from an egalitarian perspective, but I really wonder if that verdict would have happened if the plantiff (and "potential dad") were not so prominent.

Belgium is a Civil Law country and its laws and legal system are very different from ours and those of other Common Law countries, but the fact Delphine was allowed to make the claim despite the long-expired limitation period does not strike me as being extraordinary. Our system allows for the granting of extensions of time in certain situations and such applications are not uncommon. I assume something similar is available in Belgium and would be interested to hear from someone with local knowledge.

 

[Denville]

That's very interesting. I wonder why. National interest?

The article says: "The Constitutional court has now ruled that the right to know who your biological father is, is more important than the 22 year age limit and that, consequently, Delphine Boël need not comply with the legal age limit."

Lovely from an egalitarian perspective, but I really wonder if that verdict would have happened if the plantiff (and "potential dad") were not so prominent.

I think that it became inevitable. And Albert just looked a fool going on denying and refusing...

 

[maria-olivia]

Enough.!

We all are sorry in Belgium our King did not admit before He was Delphine's Father.

No Word in our newspaper about it since the annoucement.

But this Board is not as before , bla bla bla for Epstein , Waringo and Delphine.

Treating our former King as a Fool I may just not admit. I miss the late Warren so much !

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That's very interesting. I wonder why. National interest?

The article says: "The Constitutional court has now ruled that the right to know who your biological father is, is more important than the 22 year age limit and that, consequently, Delphine Boël need not comply with the legal age limit."

Lovely from an egalitarian perspective, but I really wonder if that verdict would have happened if the plantiff (and "potential dad") were not so prominent.

I have wondered the same. The Constitutional Court has handed down similar verdicts for other plaintiffs challenging the legal limits, but the ones I know of seem to have been decided subsequent to the verdict in the Delphine/Jacques Boël case.

Belgium is a Civil Law country and its laws and legal system are very different from ours and those of other Common Law countries, but the fact Delphine was allowed to make the claim despite the long-expired limitation period does not strike me as being extraordinary. Our system allows for the granting of extensions of time in certain situations and such applications are not uncommon. I assume something similar is available in Belgium and would be interested to hear from someone with local knowledge.

The Civil Code can be found online, if you are interested, and the relevant regulations seem to be in article 318. I have not read the entire Civil Code, but article 318 does not mention any options for an extension, and while I am no expert, I would assume that had an extension been possible Delphine or the lower court would have sought or granted one rather than appealing to the constitutional court to override the law.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Isn't it funny he tacitly admitted it to a country, and then lied to Delphine and refused to help or speak to her?

There is a wife's pride, there is panic, and there is cowardice.

If Albert was expecting no repercussions from his Christmas speech, who told him lying for the next twenty years would make him look any better?

He did not lie when he stated he was no father.

Jacques Boël had the Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État for more than half a century. The Court of Justice had to go extremely close to the edge (or even over the edge, according jurists) to find the smallest loophole to enable Delphine to request a DNA-match from an individual to prove paternity while there simply was father whom posessed said Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État.

In Belgian law, Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État is the highest possible means of proving someone's state. For example, if a man has state ownership as a father to a child (like Jacques Boël), the descent is irrefutably established (art. 324 of the Civic Code). This evidence even prevails over other evidence such as DNA tests. Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État is therefore a legal state that does not necessarily have to correspond to biological reality.

Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État is of great importance in Belgian family law and plays a major role if one reads this together with the rules regarding the establishment of paternity within marriage (art. 315, 316bis, 326 of the Civic Code).

The long and exhausting legal procedure was needed because this important fixture in Belgian law was a granite block. One of the problems was that Delphine only discussed said Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État three decades after knowing the facts. All these three decades the existing situation was not fought. Not by Delphine. Not by Jacques Boël. Not by Sybille Boël-de Selys Longchamps.

It had to come to the Constitutional Court to rule that the individual right of the child (Delphine) to have clarity and assurance in the end outweighs the legal bond and the familial serenity. Lower Courts had ruled differently in this matter.

 

[Roslyn]

He did not lie when he stated he was no father.

Jacques Boël had the Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État for more than half a century. The Court of Justice had to go extremely close to the edge (or even over the edge, according jurists) to find the smallest loophole to enable Delphine to request a DNA-match from an individual to prove paternity while there simply was father whom posessed said Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État.

In Belgian law, Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État is the highest possible means of proving someone's state. For example, if a man has state ownership as a father to a child (like Jacques Boël), the descent is irrefutably established (art. 324 of the Civic Code). This evidence even prevails over other evidence such as DNA tests. Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État is therefore a legal state that does not necessarily have to correspond to biological reality.

Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État is of great importance in Belgian family law and plays a major role if one reads this together with the rules regarding the establishment of paternity within marriage (art. 315, 316bis, 326 of the Civic Code).

The long and exhausting legal procedure was needed because this important fixture in Belgian law was a granite block. One of the problems was that Delphine only discussed said Bezit van Staat / Possession d'État three decades after knowing the facts. All these three decades the existing situation was not fought. Not by Delphine. Not by Jacques Boël. Not by Sybille Boël-de Selys Longchamps.

It had to come to the Constitutional Court to rule that the individual right of the child (Delphine) to have clarity and assurance in the end outweighs the legal bond and the familial serenity. Lower Courts had ruled differently in this matter.

Thank you for this clear explanation and summary. It's a very different system from the one I am used to.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding was that Delphine did not allege that Albert denied being her legal father (which he quite obviously was not, and even now is not), but that he denied being her biological father (which he demonstrably is).

 

[Denville]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding was that Delphine did not allege that Albert denied being her legal father (which he quite obviously was not, and even now is not), but that he denied being her biological father (which he demonstrably is).

and more hurtfully he seems to have said to her that she was no daughter of his, meaning that he did not want anyting to do with her.. He knows quite well Im sure that she is his biologoical daughter and he was just being angry and unpleasant.

 

[Addapalla]

But this Board is not as before , bla bla bla for Epstein , Waringo and Delphine.

Andrew/Epstein, Waringo and Delphine are unique, bizarre and emotion-stirring controversies that fortunately are not frequently associated with Europe's current Royal Houses: consorting with sex-traffickers, physical and psychological abuse of staff, and child-rejection. As such, these topics generate much discussion.

 

[leidi]

The divorce documents drawn up under Baudouin's supervision had Sybille not being able to (ever) see or meet Albert and Paola's children as one of the conditions of the divorce. Hard to know if Baudouin or Paola or both wanted that stipulation included. Anyway, as Marie Olivia noted, Sybille found this something she could not accept, because she was not a bad woman, and she probably hoped that at some point in the future, if she and Albert stayed together, that she would be able to meet his children.

One interesting aspect of this whole affair is how clearly it has shown that Sybille has more paternal/maternal instincts than Albert and Paola combined. Delphine has always made it clear that her mother and she have a strong relationship, and that Sybille has been a strict but loving mom. Those uninformed persons who write that Delphine was spoiled should listen to one of her interviews: Sybille adored her daughter, but almost went overboard in trying to prevent Delphine having an attachment to material goods. While laughing about it now, Delphine has recalled that after every birthday party she had, Sybille would get Delphine to gather all of the presents she had received, and they would then take these gifts to charity. Mother and daughter might have been financially comfortable, but Sybille was not letting Delphine have whatever she wanted.

Philippe and Astrid have stayed quiet about their parents, but Laurent is a living example of how childhood neglect can effect the adult offspring of two people who were not "hands-on" parents.

Philippe is FAR too respectful to ever talk badly about his parents and Astrid loves them so much (she was probably the favorite child anyway). Laurent was always rejected by everyone so I kind of understand why he can't stand his parents, both men suffered the most because of the selfishness of Albert and Paola but at least Philippe was taken under the Baudouin & Fabiola wing due to him being the future King and was able to grow up as a sensible, pragmatic man.

And maybe that's why both are such excellent husbands and fathers as well, they wouldn't want their children to go through what they went through.

 

[Biri]

Why was Laurent rejected?

 

[maria-olivia]

OUT of topic !

 

[Prinsara]

Philippe is FAR too respectful to ever talk badly about his parents and Astrid loves them so much (she was probably the favorite child anyway). Laurent was always rejected by everyone so I kind of understand why he can't stand his parents, both men suffered the most because of the selfishness of Albert and Paola but at least Philippe was taken under the Baudouin & Fabiola wing due to him being the future King and was able to grow up as a sensible, pragmatic man.

And maybe that's why both are such excellent husbands and fathers as well, they wouldn't want their children to go through what they went through.

Why was Laurent rejected?

A quote from elsewhere about the fact Delphine and Laurent have at least communicated: "they probably bonded over being rejected by Albert".

I have heard that King Baudouin and Queen Fabiola did try to look after Laurent in the same fashion as Philippe but he was simply more difficult and less accepting of the help and supervision.

 

[iceflower]

Delphine Boël attended the Brafa Art Fair in Brussels last month:



** Pic **

 

[Marengo]

Due to the Corona pandemic the court case of Delphine Boël against her father King Albert II will be postponed. The case would have started today but will now take place on September 10th.

https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20200602_04978601

Alain Berenboom, solicitor of the King, says that the king will not dispute his paternity. There will however be a disagreement about the use of the last name 'de Belgique/ van België' and about the title and predicate that Delphine may use.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The newspaper claims that legal experts disagree if Delphine can claim the title of Princess. Her lawyer says that she will not, as that was never the intention. She just wants to get rid of the name Boël. The newspaper says she can use the surname 'van België" but sources claim she will chose "van Saksen-Coburg". "The entire process was a search for identity. There is nothing that gives more identity than a last name".

https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/koni...or-de-familienaam-van-saksen-coburg~b7df8316/

Due to the Corona pandemic the court case of Delphine Boël against her father King Albert II will be postponed. The case would have started today but will now take place on September 10th.

https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20200602_04978601

Alain Berenboom, solicitor of the King, says that the king will not dispute his paternity. There will however be a disagreement about the use of the last name 'de Belgique/ van België' and about the title and predicate that Delphine may use.

If I read the latest article correctly, Mr. Berenboom is referring to '(princesse) de Belgique / (prinses) van België' as a title, not as a last name. Both sides have already stated publicly that they believe the last name is 'de Saxe-Cobourg / van Saksen-Coburg'.

However, it is odd that Mr. Berenboom expects Ms. Boël to pursue a title when her lawyers have denied it over and over, even a few months ago. It is also odd that Ms. Boël's lawyer now refuses to comment, instead of issuing another denial.

I have wondered whether King Philippe's 2015 decree was prompted by Delphine Boël's lawsuit in addition to the expected birth of Prince Amedeo's child.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20200602_04978601

Alain Berenboom, solicitor of the King, says that the king will not dispute his paternity. There will however be a disagreement about the use of the last name 'de Belgique/ van België' and about the title and predicate that Delphine may use.

If I read the latest article correctly, Mr. Berenboom is referring to '(princesse) de Belgique / (prinses) van België' as a title, not as a last name. Both sides have already stated publicly that they believe the last name is 'de Saxe-Cobourg / van Saksen-Coburg'.

However, it is odd that Mr. Berenboom expects Ms. Boël to pursue a title when her lawyers have denied it over and over, even a few months ago. It is also odd that Ms. Boël's lawyer now refuses to comment, instead of issuing another denial.

According to the report from Belga, Mr. Berenboom did indeed mean "of Saxe-Coburg" when he mentioned the last name. He apparently describes Princess of Belgium as a "title".

I am not sure how the attorneys could "disagree" in relation to the last name. The Civil Code is clear that if/when Ms. Boël is legally acknowledged as the daughter of King Albert II, it will be her right to adopt her new father's last name.

The statement, and the silence from Mr. Uyttendaele, is strange. Does Mr. Berenboom have grounds to suspect that Delphine Boël might make an about-face on pursuing a title, after years of communicating that she had no interest?