Delphine Boël, daughter of King Albert II

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I don't understand why King Albert is fighting this tooth and nail. Everyone pretty much has agreed that Delphine is his biological daughter. Unless it's different in Belgium?

I don't think this is about money for her. It's more about vindication.

Yeah, if I remember all the discussion here correctly, she really doesn't need his money. It has always sounded to me like it was about proving who her father is ...and who know what all has gone on behind the scenes that led to all the public goings on.

Quite frankly I have never understood King Albert's stance on this. If he was sure he was not the father this could of been handled years ago out of the public eye. I don't understand denying your child the basic acknowledgement of their parentage.




LaRae

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Yeah, if I remember all the discussion here correctly, she really doesn't need his money. It has always sounded to me like it was about proving who her father is ...and who know what all has gone on behind the scenes that led to all the public goings on.

Quite frankly I have never understood King Albert's stance on this. If he was sure he was not the father this could of been handled years ago out of the public eye. I don't understand denying your child the basic acknowledgement of their parentage.


LaRae

Marlene wrote something about this. Supposedly when the secret came out and people put two and two together as to who it is. Journalists started harassing her mother, and she phoned the King to help her mother with the journalists. He basically said no, and he's not her father.

Anytime when someone has leverage over you, the best way to neutralize it is to take control of the narrative. What is the worst that can happen if he just admits to fathering a child with someone else 50 years ago at this point? Seriously.

[Pranter]

Yep...if he had just said yes (or at least privately done testing etc), not likely any of this would of ever happened. I really don't have any sympathy for him at this point.


LaRae

[maria-olivia]

But Queen Paola said NO !

[Pranter]

Shame on her then. It's not the child's fault for her husband's indiscretion.


LaRae

[jacqui24]

Let's put the blame where it belongs. He has a mind of his own, despite what his wife is rumored to want or not want.

[rawsilk]

I never realized how beautiful Queen Paola was when she was young until I started to look at photos of her because of this development in the lawsuit brought by Delphine Boel.

[Moonmaiden23]

Yes...along with Grace of Monaco and the Shah's former wife Paola was one of the most exquisite Royal/Princely beauties. She was just gorgeous.

But I agree with Pranter and jacqui24 and every other poster who says that Albert has brought this entire debacle upon himself. If he had simply acknowledged paternity from a long ago affair, it would have deprived Delphine of any more ammo and been the end of it. By denying what is essentially an open secret in Belgium, and a long standing one at that...he has made everything worse.

And if he did it at the instigation of Paola, shame on them both!

[Somebody]

According to Albert's lawyer they will study the verdict and seek additional council to decide whether he will go the the court of cassation to avoid taking the DNA test. Apparently if he refuses to take the test within the next 3 months and does not try to overturn the verdict, it will be considered as a confirmation of his paternity.

[M. Payton]

Good for her, one way or another DB will get an answer to whom her father is......shame on KA and QP for denying this young girl, from what I have read she is not asking for a penny from them.......to know one's parents is also to know the medical history for she will inherit that in her life time. Now I hope when the final verdict comes down that DB can move on for she was the child and did not ask for him to be her father, besides who would want this man as a father anyhow...king or no king........just take a long good look at King Philip, his son who rarely has anything to do with his own parents.

[rawsilk]

Originally Posted by M. Payton

shame on KA and QP for denying this young girl, from what I have read she is not asking for a penny from them

I do not disagree with you in principle, but I would hardly call her a "young girl". I believe she is fifty years old now. In fact, I think that principle is what matters here, not sentiment. Should the king be an absolute monarch in modern Belgium, above the law? The court said "no".

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by rawsilk

I do not disagree with you in principle, but I would hardly call her a "young girl". I believe she is fifty years old now. In fact, I think that principle is what matters here, not sentiment. Should the king be an absolute monarch in modern Belgium, above the law? The court said "no".

While King Albert is still addressed as King, he no longer holds the immunity afforded to kings since his abdication. The issue with the court has always been if she can remove Jacques Boel as her legal father and then force King Albert to take a paternity test. The court initially ruled she can’t as they recognize Jacques Boel as her legal father. It hasn’t been Albert being above the law. Not at least since 2013.

[M. Payton]

Originally Posted by rawsilk

I do not disagree with you in principle, but I would hardly call her a "young girl". I believe she is fifty years old now. In fact, I think that principle is what matters here, not sentiment. Should the king be an absolute monarch in modern Belgium, above the law? The court said "no".

I do understand that she is *not a young girl* yet at any age everyone in a civilized society should at least know whom their parents are if for no other reasons then medical. As each of us gets older we should look closely at where we came from and what illness our parents, grandparents on both sides of a family have so that we can be more prepared for our own medical issues if and when they arise. I hope the best for DB in any case ........

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Yeah, if I remember all the discussion here correctly, she really doesn't need his money. [...]

She did not need King Albert's money because she was the daughter of jonkheer Jacques Boël, one of the wealthiest men of Belgium, who was her legal father for almost 5 decades.

But now Delphine herself has fought this paternity. Result: she is without any legal father.
This means she has no any inheritance at the moment. Not from Jacques Boël (who -according Delphine herself- had done everything anyway to make sure Delphine would not inherit any centime) and not from Albert de Belgique.

We can say that her actions have thrown away an immense fortune to inherit. Had she remained private, whe would one day have been one of the wealthiest ladies of Belgium, thanks to the Boël inheritance. The fortune of King Albert is most likely much smaller ánd has to be divided with more, whereas Delphine was Boël's only child.

[maria-olivia]

From a Belgian Poster
The Court gives 3 Months to King Albert II doing the ADN test. (I never thougt that).

Jacques Boel "n'est ni en droit , ni en fait" not by the law not by the fact Dephine's Father.

The King's Lawyers may go higher en Cassation. King Albert said he never wanted to do an ADN test.

And if Delphine was King Albert II 's daughter what will happen .
Her Lawyer Me Marc Uyttendaele ( husband of an important socialist past Minister) said she will be his legitime Child such as Philippe , Astrid and Laurent. She should wear her Father's name and be his heiress.
BUT , she will never receive a royal dotation, will never have constitionnel rights .

My Opinion :
This is very said for the Honor of our Royal Family. Since 2013 we have a King and a Queen who are doing their very best.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Well, I'm glad for Delphine that the court reached a decision, hope there will be a result from the dna test that puts the discussion to rest once and for all..

At last we might see the end of it all. Weak man that wouldn’t do it years ago.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

She did not need King Albert's money because she was the daughter of jonkheer Jacques Boël, one of the wealthiest men of Belgium, who was her legal father for almost 5 decades.

But now Delphine herself has fought this paternity. Result: she is without any legal father.
This means she has no any inheritance at the moment. Not from Jacques Boël (who -according Delphine herself- had done everything anyway to make sure Delphine would not inherit any centime) and not from Albert de Belgique.

We can say that her actions have thrown away an immense fortune to inherit. Had she remained private, whe would one day have been one of the wealthiest ladies of Belgium, thanks to the Boël inheritance. The fortune of King Albert is most likely much smaller ánd has to be divided with more, whereas Delphine was Boël's only child.

I suppose she may have been seduced by the idea of being publicly acknowledged as the daughter of a king, which is quite silly actually since, as an illegitimate child, she will never be a princess or a member of the Royal House.


I also suspect she is doing it as a payback to King Albert and especially Queen Paola, to humiliate and embarass them in public for what Delphine sees as an unfair treatment of her biological mother by the former royal couple.

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

And if Delphine was King Albert II 's daughter what will happen .
Her Lawyer Me Marc Uyttendaele ( husband of an important socialist past Minister) said she will be his legitime Child such as Philippe , Astrid and Laurent. She should wear her Father's name and be his heiress.
BUT , she will never receive a royal dotation, will never have constitionnel rights .

My Opinion :
This is very said for the Honor of our Royal Family. Since 2013 we have a King and a Queen who are doing their very best.

I don't know about using her father's name or being her heiress, but it is quite clear to me that she will not be in the line of succession to the throne as the Belgian constitution says that:

The King's constitutional powers are hereditary through the direct, natural, and legitimate descent from H.M. Leopold, Georges, Chretien, Frederic of Saxony-Coburg, by order of primogeniture.

I don't see how she can be considered "legitimate" when she was born out of wedlock.


As far as the Royal Family's honor is concerned, it is indeed unfortunate, but it is far from being the first case of illegitimate royal children, so let's not overreact. Besides, as youi said, Albert and Paola are no longer on the throne and the dignity of the monarchy is pretty secure with Philippe and Mathilde's model family.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As far as the Royal Family's honor is concerned, it is indeed unfortunate, but it is far from being the first case of illegitimate royal children, so let's not overreact. Besides, as youi said, Albert and Paola are no longer on the throne and the dignity of the monarchy is pretty secure with Philippe and Mathilde's model family.
[/FONT]

This is what I don't get. She is indeed not the first illegitimate child born to a sovereign. So why not end this years ago? Why let this keep dragging on? It just allows this to haunt the royal family for years as this plays out and drips keep coming out at every decision. Why not just admit that she's his biological daughter? It's not like people don't think it already anyways.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

[...] Why not just admit that she's his biological daughter? It's not like people don't think it already anyways.

"People thinking it already" is wacky ice.

Recently we had the lady who claimed to be the daughter Salvador Dalí, with such an absolutely convincing story that the Court of Justice ordered the exhumation for a DNA investigation.

Result: no DNA-match between the artist and the alleged daughter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...paternity-test


Remember a Belgian lady and a Spanish gentleman claiming they were a child of the King of Spain.


In the first case the Supreme Court dismissed the claim for giving an incoherent story, as was out pointed out that the former king does not have blue eyes, would not have been 31 years old in 1965, nor would he have been "The Prince of Spain" etc.

(In the other case there was an equal lack of a coherent story, lack of a matching timeline and lack of details.)

[jacqui24]

Then why not put an end to it by taking the test if he doesn’t believe her to be his daughter? We are talking about things that are not hard to prove here. Either way, he could’ve put this to bed long ago.

And this is not a case like the ones you describe. No exhumation and mismatched timeline.