Princess Delphine & Family, News & Events 1; 2020 - 2023

[JR76]

I wrote Belgian reporter Wim Dehandshutter on twitter to ask about Dèlphine and Christopher's relationship and according to him they have been in a relationship for 20 years but are not married even if she calls him her husband.

Sorry that should be 18 years, not 20 years.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Consent of the King (or in the Netherlands an Act of Parliament even) is tradition to rule out undesirable unions. Now in our time we see it as a relic: who is still unsuitable these days?

But in the Netherlands there were controverses about the daughter of a minister in the Argentinean dictatorship (approved in the end), about a lady whom had a bit too warm contacts with a murdered criminal (no Bill of Consent was offered to Parliament), about a German nobleman whom served in the Wehrmacht (approved in the end), about a Spanish royal who claimed the throne of Spain (no Bill of Consent was offered to Parliament).

Engaging in perfectly legal marriages without consent leads to loss of rights, as we have seen in various royal houses.

Delphine herself has no succession rights, because not born inside a marriage of a successor and his consented spouse. So her children automatically have no succession rights. The question if Delphine is married or not, is not even relevant: she herself has no rights to begin with.

 

[Marengo]

Royalty watcher Brigitte Balfoort said on the VTM that a dotation for Delphine is out of the question. She adds that it will be impossible for the children of Delphine to give the title to their future children. She thinks it is strange that Delphine did receive the title, since in the 2015 legal change it would only be available for descendants of King Filip.

She also claims that King Albert wanted to recognize Delphine during his speech of 1999 (when he alluded to past problems in his wedding) but that it was his entourage that had advised against it. The entourage had claimed that it would weaken his position. Of course a great irony as not recognizing her has ruined his reputation completely. Balfoort says that much of the process was taken care of by the entourage of the King, an appeal will therefor likely depend on their advice. She however does not expect an appeal as it seems that Delphine has been accepted by the Belgian population and even by the upper classes. She adds that the palace could actually be happy with the outcome, in the sense that there is clarity and that the process has ended.

She adds her voice to those who are hoping for a meeting between Delphine and her brother the King. But she adds that the king is not the type to make grand gestures. Balfoort also claims that Delphine's energy and joie de vivre could even be considered an asset for the institution.

Balfoort also states that although Delphine has won she has actually lost. She seemed to have been forced into this ongoing battle but at the end of it she does not have the emotional bond with her father that she had initially hoped for, 20 years ago. She compares the process to a boxing match. The harder Albert became, the harder Delphine played the game, the harder the punch from one side, the harder the other side punched back.

Queen Paola's name was never mentioned in the duration of the interview.

----
Delphine's best friend, Patrick Declerck (owner of WM Art Gallery in Antwerp), has spoken to the boulevard magazine 'Dag Allemaal' to correct some misunderstandings about Delphine. He says that Delphine fought this fight for all extramartial children and adds that she is full of humor and self mockery.

Apparently there was an attempt at mediation between Delphine and her father in 2013, but that attempt failed.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Delphine herself has no succession rights, because not born inside a marriage of a successor and his consented spouse. So her children automatically have no succession rights. The question if Delphine is married or not, is not even relevant: she herself has no rights to begin with.

We have no information on the court's verdict regarding possible succession rights for Princess Delphine. I assume that if the court had ruled in support of her rights it would have been announced by her lawyers, but that is only an assumption on my part.

The Dutch Constitution ceased to apply to Belgium in 1830. Belgium's own Constitution makes no statement about being "born inside the marriage of a successor and his consented spouse".

Royalty watcher Brigitte Balfoort said on the VTM that [...] it will be impossible for the children of Delphine to give the title to their future children.

That would likewise depend on the legal basis cited by the court. Does Ms. Balfoort have inside knowledge on the ruling? If so, that is interesting, but if not, then she is only speculating like the rest of us.

She adds her voice to those who are hoping for a meeting between Delphine and her brother the King. But she adds that the king is not the type to make grand gestures. Balfoort also claims that Delphine's energy and joie de vivre could even be considered an asset for the institution.

I wonder if Princess Delphine herself would hope for such a meeting? It would seem strange to me that she would have made then-Prince Philippe one of the subjects of her earlier lawsuit and that her supportive mother would have criticized him in public if her daughter had hoped to meet with him.

Delphine's best friend, Patrick Declerck (owner of WM Art Gallery in Antwerp), has spoken to the boulevard magazine 'Dag Allemaal' to correct some misunderstandings about Delphine. He says that Delphine fought this fight for all extramartial children and adds that she is full of humor and self mockery.

But then why did she not ask the court to overturn the laws excluding extramarital children from inheriting titles?

 

[cathy50]

Royalty watcher Brigitte Balfoort said on the VTM that a dotation for Delphine is out of the question. She adds that it will be impossible for the children of Delphine to give the title to their future children. She thinks it is strange that Delphine did receive the title, since in the 2015 legal change it would only be available for descendants of King Filip.

She also claims that King Albert wanted to recognize Delphine during his speech of 1999 (when he alluded to past problems in his wedding) but that it was his entourage that had advised against it. The entourage had claimed that it would weaken his position. Of course a great irony as not recognizing her has ruined his reputation completely. Balfoort says that much of the process was taken care of by the entourage of the King, an appeal will therefor likely depend on their advice. She however does not expect an appeal as it seems that Delphine has been accepted by the Belgian population and even by the upper classes. She adds that the palace could actually be happy with the outcome, in the sense that there is clarity and that the process has ended.

She adds her voice to those who are hoping for a meeting between Delphine and her brother the King. But she adds that the king is not the type to make grand gestures. Balfoort also claims that Delphine's energy and joie de vivre could even be considered an asset for the institution.

Balfoort also states that although Delphine has won she has actually lost. She seemed to have been forced into this ongoing battle but at the end of it she does not have the emotional bond with her father that she had initially hoped for, 20 years ago. She compares the process to a boxing match. The harder Albert became, the harder Delphine played the game, the harder the punch from one side, the harder the other side punched back.

Queen Paola's name was never mentioned in the duration of the interview.

----
Delphine's best friend, Patrick Declerck (owner of WM Art Gallery in Antwerp), has spoken to the boulevard magazine 'Dag Allemaal' to correct some misunderstandings about Delphine. He says that Delphine fought this fight for all extramartial children and adds that she is full of humor and self mockery.

Apparently there was an attempt at mediation between Delphine and her father in 2013, but that attempt failed.

Thank you Marengo.
I do not know how seriously Mrs Balfoort is, but doubt some of the information.
Saying Albert lost all his reputation seems rather mood making,
his sex, his age and having fathered a child is a thing happening everywhere anytime and in many many countries this behaviour is daily routine, fathers how try to get away from responsibilities,often until they are forced, like Albert,
so I can hardly imagine many will judge him, if being honest.
if it was clever from him is another point of view, but his reputation is surely not gone. as there are always two sides anyway and we do not know what really happened as the belgian public does not.
in spite of Delphines right to do so, there is the other family with its feelings aswell to be respected and Albert certainly cared about this, too.

mood making, too, to mention and favour a future meeting of the king and Delphine, by the way he is only a halfbrother, but this is what the press can do best, they live from more dirt coming up.
I consider it rather silly to point out how happy the RF can be with Delphine's spirits, she has them through a nightmare for years now and they managed their job very well without her ever since.

but this is legal, they fight with full power, her best friend pointing out she did it for all other children..... if course, Delphine against the rest of the world, superhero now.
sorry, but it is not objective.

 

[JR76]

I wonder if Princess Delphine herself would hope for such a meeting?

Dèlphine said at the press conference something along the line that she would be willing to meet her royal relatives if they reached out to her but that it wasn't something that she expected to happen.

 

[Denville]

Thank you Marengo.
I do not know how seriously Mrs Balfoort is, but doubt some of the information.
Saying Albert lost all his reputation seems rather mood making,
his sex, his age and having fathered a child is a thing happening everywhere anytime and in many many countries this behaviour is daily routine, fathers how try to get away from responsibilities,often until they are forced, like Albert,
so I can hardly imagine many will judge him, if being honest.
if
sorry, but it is not objective.

sorry but I dont know how anyone can say that Albert was not in the wrong for his very determined attempt to deny that Delphine was his daughter. He has lost his reputation and while I suppose there are people who dont think he's in teh wrong for avoiding his daughter in the way that he has, there cant be too many....

 

[Skippy]

Thank you Marengo.
I do not know how seriously Mrs Balfoort is, but doubt some of the information.
Saying Albert lost all his reputation seems rather mood making,
his sex, his age and having fathered a child is a thing happening everywhere anytime and in many many countries this behaviour is daily routine, fathers how try to get away from responsibilities,often until they are forced, like Albert,
so I can hardly imagine many will judge him, if being honest.
if it was clever from him is another point of view, but his reputation is surely not gone. as there are always two sides anyway and we do not know what really happened as the belgian public does not.
in spite of Delphines right to do so, there is the other family with its feelings aswell to be respected and Albert certainly cared about this, too.

mood making, too, to mention and favour a future meeting of the king and Delphine, by the way he is only a halfbrother, but this is what the press can do best, they live from more dirt coming up.
I consider it rather silly to point out how happy the RF can be with Delphine's spirits, she has them through a nightmare for years now and they managed their job very well without her ever since.

but this is legal, they fight with full power, her best friend pointing out she did it for all other children..... if course, Delphine against the rest of the world, superhero now.
sorry, but it is not objective.

You clearly seem to be on King Albert's side. Okay, box checked.

sorry but I dont know how anyone can say that Albert was not in the wrong for his very determined attempt to deny that Delphine was his daughter. He has lost his reputation and while I suppose there are people who dont think he's in teh wrong for avoiding his daughter in the way that he has, there cant be too many....

I suspect that once King Albert and Queen Paola had resolved their difficulties, he wished that the entire episode with Baroness Sybille had not taken place and that Delphine did not exist.

But she did. Actions and consequences. I suppose he was all too happy that Jacques Boël was responsible for her.

At the least King Albert, if what both Baroness Sybille then in 2013 ánd Brigitte Balfoort now say is true, was badly adviced.
But I suppose that also has to do with the monarchy back then - a bit behind in the times.

I don't blame Delphine and I think this outcome has taken many by surprise.

 

[Prinsara]

I wrote Belgian reporter Wim Dehandshutter on twitter to ask about Dèlphine and Christopher's relationship and according to him they have been in a relationship for 20 years but are not married even if she calls him her husband.

Thanks. You mean James/Jim, right? Is his legal name Christopher (or is your keyboard stuck on "Sweden"? )

 

[JR76]

Thanks. You mean James/Jim, right? Is his legal name Christopher (or is your keyboard stuck on "Sweden"? )

Of course his name is Jim. I have no idea where I got Christopher from. [emoji23][emoji87]

 

[Prinsara]

She adds her voice to those who are hoping for a meeting between Delphine and her brother the King. But she adds that the king is not the type to make grand gestures. Balfoort also claims that Delphine's energy and joie de vivre could even be considered an asset for the institution.

Balfoort also states that although Delphine has won she has actually lost. She seemed to have been forced into this ongoing battle but at the end of it she does not have the emotional bond with her father that she had initially hoped for, 20 years ago. She compares the process to a boxing match. The harder Albert became, the harder Delphine played the game, the harder the punch from one side, the harder the other side punched back.

----
Delphine's best friend, Patrick Declerck (owner of WM Art Gallery in Antwerp), has spoken to the boulevard magazine 'Dag Allemaal' to correct some misunderstandings about Delphine. He says that Delphine fought this fight for all extramartial children and adds that she is full of humor and self mockery.

Apparently there was an attempt at mediation between Delphine and her father in 2013, but that attempt failed.

I'm glad there's a royal watcher in Belgium who agrees with me. ?

Albert was not going to give her their emotional bond back, though, and the removal of it caused all sorts of problems. It feels strange in the midst of all this to hear Delphine say she was trying to protect him for a long time and that she loved him (and I don't doubt any of that is true).

I wonder if Princess Delphine herself would hope for such a meeting? It would seem strange to me that she would have made then-Prince Philippe one of the subjects of her earlier lawsuit and that her supportive mother would have criticized him in public if her daughter had hoped to meet with him.




But then why did she not ask the court to overturn the laws excluding extramarital children from inheriting titles?

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.

Of course his name is Jim. I have no idea where I got Christopher from. [emoji23][emoji87]

Probably because Christopher O'Neill is the untitled American married to Madeleine...

 

[Mbruno]

Royalty watcher Brigitte Balfoort said on the VTM that a dotation for Delphine is out of the question. She adds that it will be impossible for the children of Delphine to give the title to their future children. She thinks it is strange that Delphine did receive the title, since in the 2015 legal change it would only be available for descendants of King Filip.

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:


i) People who, at birth, are children or grandchildren of the King, or children or grandchildren of the heir to the throne.



ii) Children and grandchildren of King Albert II (thus also Delphine and her children).


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).



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. 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.





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.


In summary, it is quite confusing and a bit of a mess (thus the veredict of the court).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

sorry but I dont know how anyone can say that Albert was not in the wrong for his very determined attempt to deny that Delphine was his daughter. He has lost his reputation and while I suppose there are people who dont think he's in teh wrong for avoiding his daughter in the way that he has, there cant be too many....

Albert never denied that Delphine was his daughter. He simply never said anything about it. His lawyers pointed to the correct fact that Delphine has a father.

 

[cathy50]

skippy : You clearly seem to be on King Albert's side. Okay, box checked.

No, clearly not. If I wanted to judge him, it'd look rather bad, as I am a pious catholic.
I just try to see all aspects known in a story and I read carefully all the words written and do not make up my mind quickly, many here seem not to which is ok. But it leads to
wrong conclusions, just like the one you made about me ;-)
Never mind.
By the way as another poster just wrote, Albert never said, she isn't his daughter.
I hope all of them can find peace now, but doubt it, because Delphine has just begun, let's wait and see what is there to come.

 

[Skippy]

Perhaps King Albert retrospectively wished that -next to being her legal father- Jacques Boël was Delphine's biological father as well.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Has the Delphine saga damaged the popularity of the Belgian Monarchy?

 

[Prinsara]

Albert never denied that Delphine was his daughter. He simply never said anything about it. His lawyers pointed to the correct fact that Delphine has a father.

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"?

Even then he was at great pains to point out he didn't play much of a role in his daughter's life. Which wasn't exactly true and hurt Delphine more.

 

[Prinsara]

Has the Delphine saga damaged the popularity of the Belgian Monarchy?

Marengo had a good summation the other day. Short answer, it isn't much of a shock or even really news, so no. Cratered Albert's popularity, yes.

 

[JR76]

Probably because Christopher O'Neill is the untitled American married to Madeleine...

More likely Chris O'Hare the runner

 

[An Ard Ri]

No surprise regarding the former kings popularity at all.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Somebody]

And neither we nor the royal experts know whether the decree(s) even played any part in the court's verdict.

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,​

The definition of issus is "Qui est né (de qqn)." - when it applies to a person -, so, 'who is born from'.
(or: "Qui provient (de qqch.)" - when it applies to something (a concept for example).

So, both directly or more implicitly refer to being born from a certain descendance.

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."

Personally, I would say that a possible interpretation of the court is that as children and grandchildren of Albert, Delphine and her children are princes and princesses of Belgium based on the second part (so, they are prince/princess; and in seems that in common practice normally the order HRH prince X of Y is used on all but official documents that use HRH X, prince(ss) of Y) - not the first part.

It indeed seems that Anna Astrid and Maximilian are treated by some as 'princes' and 'princesses' (which I still find confusing as to me it is illogical to be a prince/princess of nothing but many have argued that is exactly what the Belgian law implies) but not as princes and princesses of Belgium as neither the first nor the second article apply to them. So, in that way they are completely different from Delphine and her children.

If the final article was supposed to mean that each and every descendant of Leopold is a prince or princess, the Luxembourgian larger royal family would have some additional princes and princesses (including the children of the count Rodolphe of Limburg-Stirum). So, that seems an unlikely interpretation. However, article 2 could be interpreted as having 2 different categories that either fully overlap or partially overlap with both having rights to the title of prince(ss) of Belgium?! Which then results in full overlap as everyone suddenly is a prince(ss).

So, while trying to make sense of all of it, I am still confused and haven't seen a consistent interpretation of these four articles (N.B. art 2 and 4 differ in one important aspect: the additional comma). It's a mess...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The former lawyer and expert in Nobility, jonkheer Adolph Robert Phoenix Boddaert LL.M. summarized on the website of Adel in Nederland:


On October 1st, 2020, the Brussels' Court of Appeal issued a final judgment in the long-term proceedings of Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg (formerly Boël) against her father King Albert II.

Delphine's first claim was that King Albert was her father. After a DNA test showed that there was no doubt about this, in this appeal King Albert no longer defended himself against this claim. This claim was therefore honoured, without question by the Court.

Delphine also claimed for herself and for her children that they should be allowed to use the paternal surname de Saxe-Cobourg. This name was already borne by the first King of the Belgians. This claim was also honoured.

Finally Delphine claimed for herself and for her children the right to bear the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness. She relied on article 2 of the Royal Decree of 12 November 2015. This article stipulates that the direct descendants of King Albert II may use this title. A special feature is that this right also belongs to descendants in the female lineage.

The King argued against this claim that this article would only apply to his descendants, who already had this title when the Royal Decree of 2015 came into effect, and to the descendants who were born afterwards. It would therefore not apply to persons who were already alive at that time, but only obtained the status of descendant afterwards.

The Court rejected this defense, partly because such an interpretation of the Royal Decree would be contrary to the principle of equality, described in articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution (comparable to article 1 of the Netherlands' Constitution). The Court therefore ruled that Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg and her children may use the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness.

Bergen, October 5, 2020

Jonkheer Dolph Boddaert LL.M.


https://www.adelinnederland.nl/delphine-de-nieuwe-prinses-van-belgie/

 

[Somebody]

Thanks! Did Jonkheer Boddaert have insight in the court documents as he presents both Delphine's argument and the former king's arguments? If so, that shows that Delphine indeed based her claim on second article that in the opinion of the court grants the title of prince(ss) of Belgium and the style of royal highness to all children and grandchildren of Albert.

 

[Mbruno]

The former lawyer and expert in Nobility, jonkheer Adolph Robert Phoenix Boddaert LL.M. summarized on the website of Adel in Nederland:


On October 1st, 2020, the Brussels' Court of Appeal issued a final judgment in the long-term proceedings of Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg (formerly Boël) against her father King Albert II.

Delphine's first claim was that King Albert was her father. After a DNA test showed that there was no doubt about this, in this appeal King Albert no longer defended himself against this claim. This claim was therefore honoured, without question by the Court.

Delphine also claimed for herself and for her children that they should be allowed to use the paternal surname de Saxe-Cobourg. This name was already borne by the first King of the Belgians. This claim was also honoured.

Finally Delphine claimed for herself and for her children the right to bear the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness. She relied on article 2 of the Royal Decree of 12 November 2015. This article stipulates that the direct descendants of King Albert II may use this title. A special feature is that this right also belongs to descendants in the female lineage.

The King argued against this claim that this article would only apply to his descendants, who already had this title when the Royal Decree of 2015 came into effect, and to the descendants who were born afterwards. It would therefore not apply to persons who were already alive at that time, but only obtained the status of descendant afterwards.

The Court rejected this defense, partly because such an interpretation of the Royal Decree would be contrary to the principle of equality, described in articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution (comparable to article 1 of the Netherlands' Constitution). The Court therefore ruled that Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg and her children may use the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness.

Bergen, October 5, 2020

Jonkheer Dolph Boddaert LL.M.


https://www.adelinnederland.nl/delphine-de-nieuwe-prinses-van-belgie/

So, King Albert's lawyers did not raise the issue of Delphine being born out of wedlock as a defense against the application of Art.2. That is interesting.



What about succession rights? Did the Court make any ruling on that issue? The text you quoted suggests that Delphine may not have laid a claim on succession rights, but that is at odds with press reports.

Thanks! Did Jonkheer Boddaert have insight in the court documents as he presents both Delphine's argument and the former king's arguments? If so, that shows that Delphine indeed based her claim on second article that in the opinion of the court grants the title of prince(ss) of Belgium and the style of royal highness to all children and grandchildren of Albert.

My conjecture a few months ago was that the Court would construe "Princes and princesses" in the royal decree of 2015 as meaning "dynasts" and, accordingly, rule that Arts 1-4 do not apply to legitimized children born out of wedlock. But, to my surprise, King Albert's lawyers did not rely on that possible interpretation as a defense and the Court also ignored it. It appears that, indeed, Art. 2 was interpreted as literally applying to all children and grandchildren of Albert II, which suggests that Art 4 could be also read as meaning that all descendants of Leopold I are entitled to use "Prince"/" Princess" prefixed to their given names.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

No word from K Albert about the new additions to his family. Two Pss and one Prince. I believe we will never see A and P with Delphine and his new grandchildren sit for a photo.

 

[wartenberg7]

I don´t understand why she is now a royal Princess only by being reckognized as the biologicial daughter of King Albert...?!
In history many Kings fathered "illegitimate" children, but of course, because of being born outside a legal marriage, none became royal - unless they were given a title by the monarch!
I´m pretty surprised and I´m not sure what to think about it.

 

[Denville]

Obviously he is not going to be seen with her... Anyway their private relationship is their own business and not for photo opportuntiies

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don´t understand why she is now a royal Princess only by being reckognized as the biologicial daughter of King Albert...?!
In history many Kings fathered "illegitimate" children, but of course, because of being born outside a legal marriage, none became royal - unless they were given a title by the monarch!
I´m pretty surprised and I´m not sure what to think about it.

The legal "why" is unclear since the court ruling has not been published. However, Duc_et_Pair shared a blog post from a Dutch lawyer who seems to have received information about the ruling. In brief, it is seemingly based on new interpretations of the 2015 royal decree and of the Constitution.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...delphine-of-belgium-47954-17.html#post2347324

The change in title and name was connected to the change of legal father. She became the legal daughter of King Albert II at the same time she received her new titles and name.

 

[macedonsky]

I don´t understand why she is now a royal Princess only by being reckognized as the biologicial daughter of King Albert...?!

She was recognized as the legal daughter of Albert II and as his legal daughter she was recognized as the person who have the title of Princess of Belgium and HRH because royal decrees have no exception for borned out of wedlock.