Belgian Nobility


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I suppose she is a countess van der Noot d'Assche?
 
:previous:

I think so. Sometimes she's referred to as Princess of Assche, sometimes as Paola d'Assche Salimei and I've seen the combination Paola Salimei van der Noot d'Assche.
 
What a stunning residence and I did not know that the Count was a grandson of the late Count de Paris.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The Belgian tax services are doing research into the inheritance of the late Viscountess Amicie de Spoelberch (1922-2008). She was a member of the family that partly owns the brewing company AB-InBev, the largest of its kind in the world. Her parents were Viscount Olivier de Spoelberch and Madeleine de la Barre d'Erquelinnes.

https://plus.lesoir.be/375161/artic...spoelberch-des-heritiers-dab-inbev-cibles-par

The viscountess died in 2008 and no inheritance tax was paid in Belgium. She lived most of her life in Belgium, she passed away in Brussels.

Amicie owned 8 million stocks of the company. The stocks were held in Luxembourg (country, not the Belgian province) and the viscountess could count on a dividend of a million Euros per year, which was placed in an account based in Arlon, Belgian Luxembourg. She was not married and had no children of her own. Her only brother Roger died in 1993, without wife or children. His share of the family fortune was inherited by his sister Amicie.

In 2001, when she was in her late 70-ties, she married the 15-years younger Luka Bailo, a Serbian businessman who was naturalized as a Belgian and who had ties to the Serbian mafia. The couple married without a prenup. There were several legal investigations into the criminal acivities of Bailo. Among other things a female doctor was found dead in his castle in Uccle in 1998, he was robbed twice and during a search in his castle the police found 8 million Euros in cash. The viscountess approached the then PM Guy Verhofstadt to try to end the investigation.

In 2004 Amicie adopted the two adult sons of Bailo from a previous marriage, named Alexis and Patrice. A few months later Bailo died due to cancer.

As Patrice and Alexis did not care too much about their sick father, the viscountess decided to disinherit them, only to discover that her stocks were embazzled by the two brothers. Her own Luxembourg lawyer Mme Farida Chorfi was involved in the embazzlement and later was convicted in Geneva to 30 months imprisonment for fraud and later for moneylaundring. She apparently redirected 66 million Euros to her own accounts.

The two brothers in the mean time moved to Switzerland and changed their last name into Bailo de Spoelberch. In a new testament Amicie decided to scrap the names of her two adoptive sons.

The legal battle was still going on when the viscountess died in 2010. The brothers decide to settle the matter with the Spoelberch family. Part of the inheritance will go to a foundation in Liechtenstein. Another part -valued at 589 million Euros- was devided between the two.

Both parties agreed to keep complete silence over the deal. That means it happened without the knowledge of the Belgian tax authorities. The dossier inheritance of Amicie de Spoelberch has featured in the so-called Lux-leaks and Panama-leaks.

As the legal time table on the tax is due to expire soon, the authorities have now relaunched an investigation into the deal.

Both the two brothers as the other heirs have hired a small army of lawyers, which will make it more difficult for the tax service to succeed.
 
Last edited:
Prinsara said:
After getting over the initial shock of the claimed-and-bestowed princess thing, I'm still Team Delphine. I think it was fair for her to get the title, personally, and it's excellent insurance against anyone else who still wants to slander, ignore or discredit her or her kids. After getting over the shock, it didn't seem so shocking at all, but fitting. "Princess Delphine" is who she is, and she's got a right to that identity.
Click to expand...

But surely other children of fathers not married to their mothers should have as much right to their identity as Delphine?

As I stated earlier in the other thread, it would have been fair, and fitting with the elimination of legitimacy and illegitimacy under civil law and with one in two Belgian children now being born out of wedlock, if the court had given all children the right to their parents' titles irrespective of their parents' marital status.

That is not, however, what the court chose to do. Instead, it created a one-off exception applicable to Delphine, and Delphine only. (According to the government, other noble titles are still inherited only by "legitimate direct descendent, in the male line" (see question 8).) Presumably, the court felt it was right to give Delphine special treatment because her father is a king while the fathers of other children are "mere" nobles. I cannot see how that could be fair.

Hopefully other children born out of wedlock to noblemen, as well as children born to noblewomen, will file suit to ask for the same rights.
 
Last edited:
Tatiana Maria said:
Passages of the judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeals of October 1, 2020:

https://www.justice-en-ligne.be/Delphine-de-Saxe-Cobourg-membre-de


« [L’article 2 de l’arrêté royal du 12 novembre 2015] ne fait aucune distinction entre les différents enfants et petits-enfants issus de la descendance directe de Sa Majesté le Roi Albert qui sont en droit de porter le titre de ‘Prince ou Princesse de Belgique’ »

« Madame Delphine Boël, et ses enfants […], sont enfant et petits-enfants issus de la descendance directe du Roi Albert II, et ils sont donc autorisés à porter le titre de ‘Princesse de Belgique’ et ‘Prince de Belgique’, leurs prénoms étant précédés du prédicat ‘Son Altesse Royale’.

En décider autrement reviendrait à instaurer une discrimination, ou une différence de traitement sans critère objectif ou justification raisonnable, entre les enfants et petits-enfants issus de la descendance directe du Roi Albert II selon le moment auquel leur filiation avec le Roi Albert II a été établie, ce qui violerait les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.

L’article 334 du Code civil dispose d’ailleurs que quel que soit le mode d’établissement de la filiation, les enfants et leurs descendants ont les mêmes droits et les mêmes obligations à l’égard des père et mère et de leurs parents et alliés, et les père et mère et leurs parents ont les mêmes droits et les mêmes obligations à l’égard des enfants et de leurs descendants.

De la même manière, la circonstance que le Roi Albert II et Mme S. ne sont pas mariés ne pourrait constituer un obstacle au port du titre de ‘Princesse de Belgique’ ou ‘Prince de Belgique’ et du prédicat ‘Son Altesse Royale’ conformément à l’article 2 de l’arrêté royal du 12 novembre 2015, sous peine d’établir une différence de traitement non raisonnablement justifiable entre les différents enfants et petits-enfants issus de la descendance directe du Roi Albert II selon le statut matrimonial de leurs parents, ce qui violerait les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution ».
Click to expand...



Translation:


"[Article 2 of the royal decree of 12 November 2015] does not make any distinction between the different children and grandchildren in direct descent from His Majesty King Albert who have the right to bear the title of 'Prince or Princess of Belgium'"

"Ms. Delphine Boël, and her children [...], are child and grandchildren in direct descent from King Albert II, and there are thus authorized to bear the title of 'Princess of Belgium' and 'Prince of Belgium', their forenames being preceded by the predicate 'Her/His Royal Highness'.

To decide otherwise would be to create a discrimination, or a difference in treatment without an objective criterion or reasonable justification, between the children and grandchildren in direct descent from King Albert II depending on the moment at which their filiation with King Albert II was established, which would violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.

Article 334 of the Civil Code also stipulates that whatever the mode of establishment of filiation, the children and their descendants have the same rights and the same obligations in regard to the father and mother and their relatives and in-laws, and the father and mother and their relatives have the same rights and the same obligations in regard to the children and their descendants.

In the same manner, the circumstance that King Albert II and Ms. S. [Baroness Sybille de Sélys Longchamps] are not married could not constitute an obstacle to carrying the title of 'Princess of Belgium' or 'Prince of Belgium' and the predicate 'Her/His Royal Highness' in conformity with article 2 of the royal decree of 12 November 2015, otherwise, it would establish a difference in treatment without reasonable justification between the different children and grandchildren in direct descent from King Albert II depending on the marital status of their parents, which would violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution."
Click to expand...



The articles of the Constitution referred to in the judgment of the court say:


Article 10

No class distinctions exist in the State.

Belgians are equal before the law; they alone are eligible for civil and military service, but for the exceptions that can be created by a law for particular cases.

Equality between women and men is guaranteed.


Article 11

Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised for Belgians must be provided without discrimination. To this end, laws and federate laws guarantee among others the rights and freedoms of ideological and philosophical minorities.
Click to expand...



A reminder: The Court of Appeal took the decision to provide titles exclusively to Delphine and her children. Other illegitimate children of noble men, and other children (legitimate or not) of noble women, continue to be excluded from carrying their father's or mother's title, as can be read on the official website of the federal government:



9. I believe that I am the descendant of a noble ancestor. Am I eligible for a recognition of nobility? What are the conditions?

If the applicants consider themselves to be the legitimate direct descendent, in the male line, of an ancestor who belonged to the nobility in our regions until the end of the 'Ancien Régime' (i.e. until the abolition of the nobility in the French era) or who was officially a member of the nobility in his country of origin, they may lodge an application for recognition of nobility.

https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/pr...rary-distinctions/nobility/faq-about-nobility
​


Having regard to the judges' reasons given in the passages above, in my view it was inappropriate of them to apply their decision specially to Delphine and her children and continue subjecting other illegitimate and female-line children to discriminatory inheritance rules.

If the titles of Delphine and her children come within Article 10 and 11's guarantee of equality, then the same guarantee should govern the titles of other families.
Click to expand...


Any thoughts as to why the judge(s) decided that the doctrine of equality and nondiscrimination in Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution requires equal titles for Delphine and her children but not for any of the other illegitimate or female-line children of Belgian noble families?
 
Last edited:
The main branch of the Ligne family are descendants of an American heiress who married into the French aristocracy, Mary Ray, Viscountess Courval through the Noailles family
 
SirGyamfi1 said:
The main branch of the Ligne family are descendants of an American heiress who married into the French aristocracy, Mary Ray, Viscountess Courval through the Noailles family
Click to expand...

Could you explain which Prince de Ligne married this Women ?
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Any thoughts as to why the judge(s) decided that the doctrine of equality and nondiscrimination in Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution requires equal titles for Delphine and her children but not for any of the other illegitimate or female-line children of Belgian noble families?
Click to expand...

The judge refers to Royal decree of 12 Nov 2015 for this decision. As far as I can tell the reasoning is that this decree does not make a distinction between male and female descendents nor between legitimate and illegitimate off-spring, and therefore it would not be constitutional to add this limitation while there is no legal basis to do so.

Apparently, in cases where these distinctions are made in the law, this is a 'reasonable justification' for exclusion of these groups.
 
maria-olivia said:
Could you explain which Prince de Ligne married this Women ?
Click to expand...
According to what I can find:
Mary Ray (1835-1901) married Arthur Dubois, the Vicomte de Courval (1826-1873).
Their daughter Madeleine Marie Isabelle Dubois de Courval (1870–1944) married François Joseph Eugène Napoléon de Noailles, the 10th Prince de Poix (1866-1900).
Their daughter Philippine Marie Cécile Douce de Noailles (1898–1991), married Eugène Frederic Marie Lamoral (1893–1960), 11th Prince de Ligne.
Their daughter Yolande Marie Jeanne Charlotte (1923-) married Archduke Carl Ludvig of Austria (1918-2007).
 
Somebody said:
The judge refers to Royal decree of 12 Nov 2015 for this decision. As far as I can tell the reasoning is that this decree does not make a distinction between male and female descendents nor between legitimate and illegitimate off-spring, and therefore it would not be constitutional to add this limitation while there is no legal basis to do so.

Apparently, in cases where these distinctions are made in the law, this is a 'reasonable justification' for exclusion of these groups.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the reply. :flowers: I don't think I understand what you are suggesting in the second paragraph; would you mind rephrasing it?

Regarding the fact that the words of the royal decree of 12 November 2015 do not make a distinction between male and female lines or between legitimate and illegitimate offspring: The words of the creations of non-royal nobiliary titles are to like effect. The standard remainder of a hereditary noble title is to "himself and his descendants" (Moniteur Belge - Belgisch Staatsblad), with nothing said about gender or legitimacy. So, I wonder, why did the judicial court treat these titles differently than Delphine's?
 
maria-olivia said:
Could you explain which Prince de Ligne married this Women ?
Click to expand...
Please kindly look at the post by JR76

JR76 said:
According to what I can find:
Mary Ray (1835-1901) married Arthur Dubois, the Vicomte de Courval (1826-1873).
Their daughter Madeleine Marie Isabelle Dubois de Courval (1870–1944) married François Joseph Eugène Napoléon de Noailles, the 10th Prince de Poix (1866-1900).
Their daughter Philippine Marie Cécile Douce de Noailles (1898–1991), married Eugène Frederic Marie Lamoral (1893–1960), 11th Prince de Ligne.
Their daughter Yolande Marie Jeanne Charlotte (1923-) married Archduke Carl Ludvig of Austria (1918-2007).
Click to expand...
You are correct and this is precisely the relationship between Mary Ray and the Ligne Family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paola of Assche attended the opening of an exhibition of the Reiffers Art Initiatives - Acacias Art Center in Paris:


** Pic ** pdv article **
 
Are the new titles Hereditary nobles or just for life?
 
An Ard Ri said:
Are the new titles Hereditary nobles or just for life?
Click to expand...

2 Belgians already belonging to the hereditary Nobility, jonkheer Cédric Blanpain and jonkvrouw Charlotte Lhoist, got permission to use the title of baron / barones as a personal title.

8 Belgians without a noble title or predicate were elevated into the Nobility with the personal title baron/ barones.
 
Last edited:
Tatiana Maria said:
Any thoughts as to why the judge(s) decided that the doctrine of equality and nondiscrimination in Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution requires equal titles for Delphine and her children but not for any of the other illegitimate or female-line children of Belgian noble families?
Click to expand...

Somebody said:
The judge refers to Royal decree of 12 Nov 2015 for this decision. As far as I can tell the reasoning is that this decree does not make a distinction between male and female descendents nor between legitimate and illegitimate off-spring, and therefore it would not be constitutional to add this limitation while there is no legal basis to do so.

Apparently, in cases where these distinctions are made in the law, this is a 'reasonable justification' for exclusion of these groups.
Click to expand...

Tatiana Maria said:
I appreciate the reply. :flowers: I don't think I understand what you are suggesting in the second paragraph; would you mind rephrasing it?

Regarding the fact that the words of the royal decree of 12 November 2015 do not make a distinction between male and female lines or between legitimate and illegitimate offspring: The words of the creations of non-royal nobiliary titles are to like effect. The standard remainder of a hereditary noble title is to "himself and his descendants" (Moniteur Belge - Belgisch Staatsblad), with nothing said about gender or legitimacy. So, I wonder, why did the judicial court treat these titles differently than Delphine's?
Click to expand...

It seems I was wrong about the sentence in bold. Although the gazette notices indeed do not make any mention of gender or legitimacy, the letters patent do, according to an article published on the website of the Belgian nobility association:

Les termes des lettres patentes ont toujours été très clairs : « Vu l’article 113 de la Constitution, Nous anoblissons ledit ... (Prénom et Nom), ainsi que ses descendants des deux sexes nés et à naître de mariage, seuls les descendants mâles pouvant transmettre la noblesse. ».

(The terms of letters patent are always quite clear: "Regarding Article 113 of the Constitution, We ennoble ... (forename and surname), as well as his descendants of both sexes born and to be born from marriage, with only the male descendants capable of transmitting the nobility.")

https://www.anrb-vakb.be/IMG/pdf/la_noblesse_est-elle_un_privilege.pdf​


However, another article notes that the specification "from marriage" was only added to letters patent beginning in 1988. It does not make clear when the wording on male-only transmission was added. (See page 127.)

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8533464/file/8533466.pdf


Thus, I will amend my question to: Why did the court only confer titles on Delphine and not the other illegitimate children of noblemen whose titles were granted before 1988?
 
Tatiana Maria said:
It seems I was wrong about the sentence in bold. Although the gazette notices indeed do not make any mention of gender or legitimacy, the letters patent do, according to an article published on the website of the Belgian nobility association:

Les termes des lettres patentes ont toujours été très clairs : « Vu l’article 113 de la Constitution, Nous anoblissons ledit ... (Prénom et Nom), ainsi que ses descendants des deux sexes nés et à naître de mariage, seuls les descendants mâles pouvant transmettre la noblesse. ».

(The terms of letters patent are always quite clear: "Regarding Article 113 of the Constitution, We ennoble ... (forename and surname), as well as his descendants of both sexes born and to be born from marriage, with only the male descendants capable of transmitting the nobility.")

https://www.anrb-vakb.be/IMG/pdf/la_noblesse_est-elle_un_privilege.pdf​


However, another article notes that the specification "from marriage" was only added to letters patent beginning in 1988. It does not make clear when the wording on male-only transmission was added. (See page 127.)

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8533464/file/8533466.pdf


Thus, I will amend my question to: Why did the court only confer titles on Delphine and not the other illegitimate children of noblemen whose titles were granted before 1988?
Click to expand...
It’s possible that those illegitimate noble descendants either died, e.g King Leopold II disputed illegitimate children or are simply unknown. Plus did any of them appeal to be recognised by their birth parents titles? It’s also possible that the illegitimate descendants may have been given different titles
 
they were born Ecuyer , then King Baudouin titled Guy as Baron.

Charles Albert (Charly) was tittled Count when he married Countess Madeleine Bernadotte. They divorced.

What happen this morning is in all the news. Mimi Lechien was Count Guy second wife. All what she did was succesful. They were very very Rich . She was killed because of a Heirloom.
 
maria-olivia said:
they were born Ecuyer , then King Baudouin titled Guy as Baron.

Charles Albert (Charly) was tittled Count when he married Countess Madeleine Bernadotte. They divorced.

What happen this morning is in all the news. Mimi Lechien was Count Guy second wife. All what she did was succesful. They were very very Rich . She was killed because of a Heirloom.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I knew that Charles-Albert was untitled before his marriage so I was surprised to see that Guy was a baron. Was Guy given a title at the same time as his brother?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

iceflower
State Visit from Luxembourg to Belgium: April 16- 18, 2024
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
maria-olivia
maria-olivia
Marengo
Titles of the Belgian Royal Family 2: 2023 -
Replies
16
Views
2K
Linda_26
Linda_26
Blog Real
State visit from Portugal to Belgium: October 16th and 20th, 2023
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
iceflower
iceflower
Stefan
Jewels of the British Nobility 2: Aug. 2023 -
Replies
10
Views
1K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Assigned Moderators - Royal Family of Belgium Forum
Replies
0
Views
186
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom